Re: PseudoPartitioning and agregates

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: falcon <falcon(at)intercable(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PseudoPartitioning and agregates
Date: 2005-05-25 13:37:05
Message-ID: 11537.1117028225@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-25 15:02:11 WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2005-05-25 12:04:01 Re: IN/OUT parameters