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? http://archives.postgresql.org
