| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN and nfiltered, take two |
| Date: | 2011-09-22 16:52:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20110922165234.GA17460@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:41:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I thought seriously about that too. The problem with it is that
> you end up having to print that line all the time, whether or not it
> adds any knowledge. The "filter removed N rows" approach has the saving
> grace that you can leave it out when no filtering is happening. Another
> point is that if you have two filters operating at a node, printing only
> the starting number of rows doesn't let you disentangle which filter did
> how much.
I wonder if it would be more useful to print a percentage. If 0% is
filtered out you can still drop it but it gives a more useful output if
the number of rows is really large.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-09-22 16:53:55 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-09-22 16:45:12 | Re: new createuser option for replication role |