Re: More vacuum stats
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-08-23T14:46:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >>> We could also store last_autovacuum_vacuum_duration - is that better >>> or worse than start and end time? >> >> No, I think you want to know the actual time not only the duration. > Well, you could calculate one from the other - especially if one takes > less size, per your comment above. With alignment considerations, adding a field is going to cost 8 bytes; whether it's a timestamp or a duration isn't going to matter. I'd be inclined to store the timestamp, it just seems more like the base datum. regards, tom lane