| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 18:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 87y7w6gowm.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I was intending to push forward with the idea of being able to get
> numbers out of a canceled EXPLAIN. That will allow you to get some
> information even when the underlying query runs longer than you're
> willing to tolerate. I still say that the number of queries where
> avoiding gettimeofday overhead would transform an intolerable runtime
> into a tolerable one is pretty limited.
Are we still going to subtract out the gettimeofday overhead?
I was always more excited about that than the sampling aspect. I've run into
queries where EXPLAIN ANALYZE results were deceptive due to the gettimeofday
overhead but I've never run into a query where gettimeofday overhead made
running the query under EXPLAIN ANALYZE impractical.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-09 18:41:03 | Re: ADD/DROP constraints |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-06-09 18:26:20 | Re: ADD/DROP constraints |