100% in agreement. While there may be systems
where timed_statistics ON may impose an unacceptable
load, the vast majority of databases out there wouldn't fall
into that category. And they help a lot when a problem
develops, so why not have them on all the time?
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_nsw.bigpond.net.au.nospam
Is there a nospam domain?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den
Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:937421771.16566.0.nnrp-06.9e984b29_at_news.demon.co.uk...
>
> There are supposed to be some operating systems
> where the call to time() has a significant cost, but
> on Unix boxes it seems to be very cheap.
>
> The worst overhead I ever saw was about 10%,
> but this was on a totally abysmal application that
> did everything with single row fetches - and then
> did literally millions of fetches.
>
> On most systems that I have seen the overhead
> appeared to be less than 1%.
>
> My theory is this:
> If the overhead is enough to make you worried,
> you need to tune the database. If you need to
> tune the database you need to have timed_stats
> on. If you don't need to tune the database you
> can afford to have it timed_stats on anyway.
>
> There's a famous law of human behaviour that sounds
> similar, but I can't remember which it is.
>
Received on Wed Sep 15 1999 - 18:15:10 CDT
