On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:12:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In my case it would be helpful to break the heap access numbers out > > between seqscans and index scans, since each of those represents very > > different access patterns. Would adding that be a mess? > > Yes; it'd require more counters-per-table than we now keep, thus > nontrivial bloat in the stats collector's tables. Not to mention
ISTM it would only require two additional columns, which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially considering the value of the information collected. > incompatible changes in the pgstats views and the underlying functions > (which some apps probably use directly). There's certainly ways around that issue, especially since this would only be adding new information (though we would probably want to consider the old info as depricated and eventually remove it). -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
