| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: explain analyze with 'rows' but not timing |
| Date: | 2011-12-23 21:37:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCede2zQZ77sYr+ohf=ib4Lf004erFVhQD-OndKfYn-sA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/23 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> writes:
>> The motivation for this patch was that collection timing data often
>> causes performance issues and in some cases it's not needed. But is this
>> true for row counts?
>
> Perhaps more to the point, is there a use case for collecting timing
> data without row counts? I find it hard to visualize a valid reason.
yes - a searching of bad prediction
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-12-23 21:48:56 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-12-23 21:36:11 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |