Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Subject: Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
Date: 2014-10-13 14:59:30
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZqpJNyyxYo9h4P_wfF5c=v3WvstmDuXvQxE5G8bbef7g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ronan Dunklau <ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr> writes:
>> That wouldn't solve the first problem mentioned, which is that for some
>> regression tests one may want to test the costs themselves, which is now
>> impossible with the new planning time feature.
>
> That's a bogus argument, because it was impossible before too. We have
> no such tests now, and it's unlikely we will ever add any, because costs
> inherently are platform-dependent. The reason we invented COSTS OFF in
> the first place was to make it possible to do EXPLAIN in regression tests
> without getting platform-dependent output.
>
> I have no great objection to making both COSTS OFF and TIMING OFF suppress
> the "planning time" output, if that's the consensus. I would object to
> taking away that behavior of COSTS OFF, because of the implications for
> back-patching EXPLAIN queries in regression tests.
>
> Another possibility, which would introduce less non-orthogonality into
> the switch design, is to remove the connection to COSTS OFF but say that
> planning time is only printed when execution time is also printed (ie,
> only in EXPLAIN ANALYZE). This seems to me that it would not be removing
> much functionality, because if you just did a plain EXPLAIN then you can
> take the client-side runtime (psql \timing) as a close-enough estimate
> of planning time.

That'd be fine with me. Making it controlled by COSTS and/or TIMING
would be OK with me, too. But let's do *something*.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-10-13 15:01:27 Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL 9.4 mmap(2) performance regression on FreeBSD...
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-10-13 14:56:10 Re: [9.4 bug] The database server hangs with write-heavy workload on Windows