Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqR8GPni-Y_Tr1+6XFdYCuum8a5MuB9q2+hnVcA7BYrorw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes  (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> If you still thing that additional 16 bytes per relation in statistic is too
>> high overhead, then I will also remove autotune.
>
> I think it's pretty clear that these additional bytes are excessive.

The bar to add new fields in PgStat_TableCounts in very high, and one
attempt to tackle its scaling problems with many relations is here by
Horiguchi-san:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20171211.201523.24172046.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
His patch may be worth a look if you need more fields for your
feature. So it seems to me that the patch as currently presented has
close to zero chance to be committed as long as you keep your changes
to pgstat.c.
-- 
Michael


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: incorrect error message, while dropping PROCEDURE
Следующее
От: Chapman Flack
Дата:
Сообщение: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak