Re: PseudoPartitioning and agregates

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, falcon <falcon(at)intercable(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PseudoPartitioning and agregates
Date: 2005-05-25 15:21:03
Message-ID: 87fywb8h7k.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>
> > How hard would it be to have Postgres actually remove the gettimeofday
> > overhead from the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output?
>
> Personally, I dislike measurement tools that lie to you under the flag
> of producing more-easily-interpreted results.

This is pretty standard practice for profilers in other contexts.

> As an example of why this would be a bad idea, the total time would no
> longer be closely related to the actual elapsed time (as measured by
> psql's \timing for instance) so you would be entirely unable to tell
> whether there was some significant factor not being measured.

Well that would be easily remedied by printing the total overhead subtracted
from all the nodes after the plan.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-05-25 15:23:14 Re: WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-25 15:02:11 WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)