Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Possible mistake in 'Using EXPLAIN' section

From: "James Shaw" <js102(at)zepler(dot)net>
To: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in 'Using EXPLAIN' section
Date: 2007-10-22 12:14:37
Message-ID: c4a5ac250710220514l33976968l2eb819b29e6e7d07@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs
On 10/10/2007, James Shaw <js102(at)zepler(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2007, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "James Shaw" <js102(at)zepler(dot)net> writes:
> > > The example given has "Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..458.00" in the
> example,
> > > but then says, "you will find out that tenk1 has 358 disk pages" and
> "the
> > > cost is estimated at 358 page reads".  Shouldn't this be 458 disk page
> > > reads?
> >
> > No.  Why did you stop reading in mid-sentence?
>
> I'm sorry, I misunderstood.  I've reread, and understand where the
> extra 100 comes from now.  Perhaps this could be reworded:
>
> This is about as straightforward as it gets.  If you do
> SELECT relpages, reltuples FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'tenk1';
>
> you will find out that tenk1 has 358 disk pages and 10000 rows.  The
> estimated cost is (disk pages read * seq_page_cost) + (number of rows
> read * cpu_tuple_cost).  By default, seq_page_cost is 1.0 and
> cpu_tuple_cost is 0.01.  Therefore, the estimated cost is (358 * 1.0)
> + (10000 * 0.01) = 458.


Were there any thoughts on this?  I was hoping this might be included in the
manual, since I felt it was somewhat clearer.

James

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-22 21:35:20
Subject: Re: Possible mistake in 'Using EXPLAIN' section
Previous:From: Albert Cervera i ArenyDate: 2007-10-21 23:06:17
Subject: Contrib docs v1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group