> I think there would be value in giving the DBA an easier way to see > which tables are hot, but I am really leery about the idea of trying > to feed that directly into the query planner. I think this is one of > those cases where we let people tune it manually for starters, and > then wait for feedback. Eventually someone will say "oh, I never tune > that by hand any more, ever since I wrote this script which does the > following computation... and I just run it out cron". And then we > will get out the party hats. But we will never get the experience we > need to say what that auto-tuning algorithm will be unless we first > provide the knob for someone to fiddle with manually.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm saying "first, we give DBAs a way to see which tables are currently hot". Such a feature has multiple benefits, making it worth the overhead and/or coding effort. Whether we're shooting for autotuning or manual tuning, it starts with having the data. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers