| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f |
| Date: | 2022-07-07 17:53:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HNhqLiqmQzw8QNKP9_vApa9xHN8Ph=EV_GJRsYzzUvg8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> - -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)
> + -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960.00
At the not inconsiderable risk of bike-shedding....
I'm wondering if printing something like 0.00 will be somewhat
deceptive when the real value is non-zero but less than 1 row per 200
loops. I wonder if the number of decimal places should be calculated
to produce a minimum of one non-zero digit for non-zero values.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-07 18:02:24 | Re: BUG #17540: Prepared statement: PG switches to a generic query plan which is consistently much slower |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-07-07 17:51:42 | Re: remove more archiving overhead |