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

Re: Query progress indication - an implementation

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query progress indication - an implementation
Date: 2009-07-02 01:32:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 02:07:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think this is pretty much nonsense --- most queries run all their plan
> >> nodes concurrently to some extent.  You can't usefully say that a query
> >> is "on" some node, nor measure progress by whether some node is "done".
> > What about showing the outermost node where work has started?
> That's always the outermost node; what would it tell you?

[ Repost ]

I think the only resonable solution would be to consider the estimated
cost of each node and then compute what percentage complete each node

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fly.LiDate: 2009-07-02 01:49:48
Subject: Re: gin--a rule for function parameter
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-07-02 00:51:04
Subject: Re: pg_migrator versus inherited columns

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group