On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 06:50:49PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:15:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
> >>>d
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:15:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
or not so
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:15:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
> > determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
> > or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
> > >> NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
> > >>
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
> >> NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
> >> in-your-face if it were on all t
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 18:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
> >> NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
>
Isn't that what pg_stat_database reports with its xact_commit and
xact_rollback values?
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of determining
# of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether or not
sort_
do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine
whether or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
I don't think there is currently, but wondering how hard it would be to
get something like this added ... ?
While
Isn't that what pg_stat_database reports with its xact_commit and
xact_rollback values?
Ah yes. Doh :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Josh Berkus wrote:
>>And I want to get statistic info through system views, like pg_statio_*.
>
> I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's just a little too late to
> get in for 8.1.
Thanks for comment. I hope 8.2 will get it.
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Satoshi,
> And I want to get statistic info through system views, like pg_statio_*.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's just a little too late to
get in for 8.1.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)
Tom,
Tom Lane wrote:
>>do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
>>determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
>>or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
>
> As of 8.1 you could turn on trace_sort to collect some data about this.
Why is the trac
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
As of 8.1 you could turn on tr
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
>> NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
>> in-your-face if it were on all the time. Does anyone thin
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
in-your-face if it were on al
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
> determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
> or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
As of 8.1 you could turn on trace_sort to collect some data abou
do we maintain anything anywhere for this? mainly, some way of
determining # of 'sorts to disk' vs 'sort in memory', to determine whether
or not sort_mem is set to a good value?
I don't think there is currently, but wondering how hard it would be to
get something like this added ... ?
tha
17 matches
Mail list logo
