On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:49:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > What I think we need to do about this is
> > 
> > (1) fix pgstat_vacuum_tabstats to have non-O(N^2) behavior; I'm thinking
> > of using a hash table for the OIDs instead of a linear list.  Should be
> > a pretty small change; I'll work on it today.
> > 
> > (2) Reconsider whether last-vacuum-time should be sent to the collector
> > unconditionally.
> (2) seems a perfectly reasonably answer, but ISTM (1) would be good to
> have anyway (at least in HEAD).

Actually, I'd rather see the impact #1 has before adding #2... If #1
means we're good for even someone with 10M relations, I don't see much
point in #2.

BTW, we're now starting to see more users with a large number of
relations, thanks to partitioning. It would probably be wise to expand
test coverage for that case, especially when it comes to performance.
Jim Nasby                                            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to