Re: Detoasting optionally to make Explain-Analyze less misleading

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: stepan rutz <stepan(dot)rutz(at)gmx(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Detoasting optionally to make Explain-Analyze less misleading
Date: 2023-09-12 15:26:39
Message-ID: 2802772.1694532399@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, maybe we should measure the overhead of serializing the tuples instead.
> The difference between your patch and "serializing the tuples, but not
> sending them" is that serializing also does the detoasting, but also
> includes any time spent in the serialization functions of the type. So
> an option "SERIALIZE" which measures all the time the server spent on
> the query (except the final step of sending the bytes to the client)
> would likely be more useful than "just" detoasting.

+1, that was my immediate reaction to the proposal as well. Some
output functions are far from cheap. Doing only the detoast part
seems like it's still misleading.

Do we need to go as far as offering both text-output and binary-output
options?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-09-12 15:51:30 Re: GenBKI emits useless open;close for catalogs without rows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-09-12 15:22:56 Re: Document that PG_TRY block cannot have a return statement