Re: [BUGS] BUG #2429: Explain does not report object's schema

I agree... VERBOSE option can be made parameterised to include
additional information in the EXPLAIN's output.

I also agree that adding the schema name wouldn't add any
overhead, and I support Tom's suggestion: 'Possibly a reasonable
compromise would be for EXPLAIN to act like rule reverse-listing
does,'

But one should be wary of adding any other option that itself
might cause an overhead, especially when doing the ANALYZE.

For example, from the ones you suggested, 'showing other plans
considered by the optimizer' seems a bit of an overhead. As the number
of JOINed tables increase, so does the number of join permutations,
and trying to keep the plans (in any form) till we send the results to
client, would block-up considerable amount of resources.

On the other hand, we can add these options and keep a note in
docs saying that the presence of these particular parameters (to
VERBOSE) will affect performance, and if used in conjunction with
ANALYZE, ANALYZE might not give you the correct picture!

On 5/16/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> How does that have anything to do with adding query names to EXPLAIN
> output??
>
> The only argument against this that makes any sense to me is that
> EXPLAIN is plenty verbose as it is, and we don't need to be making it
> worse. But that's a non-issue if showing the schema names is optional.
>
> One way to address this would be to add a verbosity level to EXPLAIN.
> Right now, EXPLAIN VERBOSE is pretty useless to users, but there is
> additional information that would be handy to get from explain at
> different levels:
>