On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Greg Stark escribió:
>>> Oops. Well, I would like to know if I'm in the minority and have to
>>> roll this back before I fix that.
>> My personal opinion is that displaying number of blocks in all EXPLAIN
>> formats is more consistent.
> FWIW, I vote for number of blocks too. I tend to see those numbers as
> more indicative of number of I/O requests than amount of memory used.
Ok, that's 3:1 against.
I suspect we'll revisit this once you see all the other
instrumentation I plan for 9.1. It will be much easier to make sense
of all the numbers in consistent units. But we'll see then.
I won't be able to do the rollback until about 11pm EST again today.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-16 17:05:42|
|Subject: Re: buildfarm breakage|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-02-16 16:22:31|
|Subject: Re: OpenVMS?|