Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:00:29PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We also have existing cases for the other way:
>
> actual time=0.050..0.052
> Buffers: shared hit=3 dirtied=1
>
> The cases mentioned by Justin are not formatted in a key=value format, so
> it's not quite the same, but it also raises the question why they are not.
>
> Let's figure out a way to consolidate this without making up a third format.

So this re-raises my suggestion here to use colons, Title Case Field Names, and
"Size: ..kB" rather than "bytes=":
|https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200403054451.GN14618%40telsasoft.com

As I see it, the sort/hashjoin style is being used for cases with fields with
different units:

Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 931kB
Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 16kB

..which is distinguished from the case where the units are the same, like
buffers (hit=Npages read=Npages dirtied=Npages written=Npages).

Note, as of 1f39bce021, we have hashagg_disk, which looks like this:

template1=# explain analyze SELECT a, COUNT(1) FROM generate_series(1,99999) a GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1;
...
-> HashAggregate (cost=1499.99..1501.99 rows=200 width=12) (actual time=166.883..280.943 rows=99999 loops=1)
Group Key: a
Peak Memory Usage: 4913 kB
Disk Usage: 1848 kB
HashAgg Batches: 8

Incremental sort adds yet another variation, which I've mentioned that thread.
I'm hoping to come to some resolution here, first.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200407042521.GH2228%40telsasoft.com

--
Justin