Re: Intermittent regression test failure from index-only scans patch
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Intermittent regression test failure from index-only scans patch |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27341.1318134866@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Intermittent regression test failure from index-only scans patch (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Intermittent regression test failure from index-only
scans patch
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 8, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to fix this by changing the test to examine idx_tup_read
>> not idx_tup_fetch. Alternatively, we could have the test force
>> enable_indexonlyscan off. Thoughts?
> No preference.
I ended up doing it the second way (ie enable_indexonlyscan = off)
because it turns out that pg_stat_user_tables doesn't have the
idx_tup_read column --- we track that count per index, not per table.
I could have complicated the test's stats queries some more, but it
seemed quite not relevant to the goals of the test.
> Should we have another counter for heap fetches avoided? Seems like that could be useful to know.
Hm. I'm hesitant to add another per-table (or per index?) statistics
counter because of the resultant bloat in the stats file. But it
wouldn't be a bad idea for somebody to take two steps back and rethink
what we're counting in this area. The current counter definitions are
mostly backwards-compatible with pre-8.1 behavior, and it seems like the
goalposts have moved enough that maybe it's time to break compatibility.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: