"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would argue that minutes is too long, but of course this could be
> user-adjustable. I suspect that even waiting just a second could be a
> huge win, since this only matters if you're executing a lot of
> statements and you won't be doing that if those statements are taking
> more than a second or two to execute.
That's not necessarily true at all. You could just as easily have a
performance problem caused by a quick statement that is being executed many
times as a slow statement that is being executed few times.
That is, you could be executing dozens of queries that take seconds or minutes
once a second but none of those might be the problem. The problem might be the
query that's taking only 300ms that you're executing hundreds of of times a
minute.
Moreover, if you're not gathering stats for queries that are fast then how
will you know whether they're performing properly when you look at them when
they do show up?
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
