From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |
Date: | 2010-02-09 22:23:09 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071002091423u2201f7b0ke88973373b5b99c9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I'd prefer to have the average; it's very confusing to have an explain
>>> row which has the cost per iteration, but the buffer usage per node.
>
>> The cost per iteration thing is IMO one of the most confusing parts of
>> the EXPLAIN output; I'm not really eager to see us replicate that
>> elsewhere.
>
> Well, if you want to put forward a proposal to get rid of that approach
> entirely, go ahead. But it doesn't seem like a good idea to me for
> EXPLAIN to print some numbers according to one viewpoint and some
> according to the other.
Well, if I propose that we just abandon that approach and print only
totals for everything, is that DOA? I think it would be a major
improvement, but it will break backward compatibility.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-09 22:30:29 | Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-02-09 22:21:43 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |