| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "'Martijn van Oosterhout'" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |
| Date: | 2006-06-09 19:02:50 |
| Message-ID: | 22232.1149879770@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:
> To avoid user confusion it would reasonable to print out a line at the bottom:
> Explain analyze profiling overhead removed: xxx ms
> That also gives the user feedback on how precise their explain analyze results
> are. If they see that the overhead being removed is as large as the timing
> remaining then they can realize that the results aren't especially precise. On
> the other hand if they see that the overhead being removed is small then they
> can be pretty confident in the precision of the results.
I would prefer to leave the numbers unmanipulated, because frankly I'd
have no confidence in the correction. Perhaps we could put a note at the
bottom about "Estimated total profiling overhead: xxx ms".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-06-09 19:18:54 | Re: Fabian Pascal and RDBMS deficiencies in fully |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-06-09 18:53:28 | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |