## Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

From: Robert Haas Tom Lane Joshua Tolley , Euler Taveira de Oliveira , "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f 2009-05-29 18:39:23 603c8f070905291139m44c7a975h4e12d30749c0a6df@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat) 2009-05-29 01:30:14 from Robert Haas  2009-05-29 03:00:37 from Euler Taveira de Oliveira   2009-05-29 03:12:42 from Robert Haas    2009-05-29 04:16:23 from Joshua Tolley     2009-05-29 17:30:36 from Tom Lane      2009-05-29 18:39:23 from Robert Haas   2009-06-02 03:30:49 from Ron Mayer    2009-06-02 13:41:00 from Simon Riggs     2009-06-02 14:06:18 from Robert Haas      2009-06-02 14:38:27 from Tom Lane       2009-06-02 14:56:59 from Robert Haas pgsql-hackers
```On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>>>> Don't you think is too strange having, for example, 6.67 rows?
>>>
>>> No stranger than having it say 7 when it's really not.  Actually mine
>>> mostly come out 1 when the real value is somewhere between 0.5 and
>>> 1.49.  :-(
>
>> +1. It would help users realize more quickly that some of the values in the
>> EXPLAIN output are, for instance, *average* number of rows *per iteration* of a
>> nested loop, say, rather than total rows found in all loops.
>
> I think it would only be sensible to show fractional digits if nloops is
> greater than 1.  Otherwise the value must in fact be an integer, and
> you're just going to confuse people more by suggesting that it might not
> be.

That might be over-engineering, but I'll take it.

...Robert

```

### pgsql-hackers by date

 Next: From: Tom Lane Date: 2009-05-29 18:44:22 Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type Previous: From: Josh Berkus Date: 2009-05-29 18:36:45 Subject: Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type