From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f |
Date: | 2009-05-29 18:39:23 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070905291139m44c7a975h4e12d30749c0a6df@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>>>> Don't you think is too strange having, for example, 6.67 rows?
>>>
>>> No stranger than having it say 7 when it's really not. Actually mine
>>> mostly come out 1 when the real value is somewhere between 0.5 and
>>> 1.49. :-(
>
>> +1. It would help users realize more quickly that some of the values in the
>> EXPLAIN output are, for instance, *average* number of rows *per iteration* of a
>> nested loop, say, rather than total rows found in all loops.
>
> I think it would only be sensible to show fractional digits if nloops is
> greater than 1. Otherwise the value must in fact be an integer, and
> you're just going to confuse people more by suggesting that it might not
> be.
That might be over-engineering, but I'll take it.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-29 18:44:22 | Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-29 18:36:45 | Re: pg_migrator and an 8.3-compatible tsvector data type |