On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Multiplying by the block size makes it sound as if all the
memory was read or used, which is simply not the case - especially for
things like buffer hits, which don't actually read or allocate any
memory at all.
In
Greg Stark escribió:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Upon further review, I also notice that this patch seems to have
falsified the EXPLAIN documentation - both the description of the
BUFFERS option and the description of the FORMAT option are no
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Greg Stark escribió:
Oops. Well, I would like to know if I'm in the minority and have to
roll this back before I fix that.
My personal opinion is that displaying number of blocks in all EXPLAIN
formats is more consistent.
FWIW, I vote for
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Greg Stark escribió:
Oops. Well, I would like to know if I'm in the minority and have to
roll this back before I fix that.
My personal opinion is that displaying number of
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
So this is what I did about my two complaints earlier about the
explain buffer patch.
a) Changed the line description to Total Buffer Usage which at least
hints that it's something more akin to the Total runtime listed at
the
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Changed the line description to Total Buffer Usage which at least
hints that it's something more akin to the Total runtime listed at
the bottom than the actual time.
b) Used units of memory -- I formatted them with 3
Greg Stark wrote:
We can always continue tweak the details of the format such as adding
spaces before the units to make it similar to the pg_size_pretty().
I'm not sure I like the idea of making it exactly equivalent because
pg_size_pretty() doesn't print any decimals so it's pretty imprecise
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
a) Changed the line description to Total Buffer Usage which at least
hints that it's something more akin to the Total runtime listed at
the bottom than the
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well there was a 30+ message thread almost a week ago where there
seemed to be some contention over the issue of whether the numbers
should be averages or totals. But were there was no dispute over the
idea of printing
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well there was a 30+ message thread almost a week ago where there
seemed to be some contention over the issue of whether the numbers
should be averages or
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, buffers seem like discrete (and unitless)
entities, and we handle them that way elsewhere in the system (see,
e.g. pg_stat_database, pg_statio_all_tables). I don't know that it's
a good idea to display that same
Greg Stark wrote:
We do *not* display raw block numbers anywhere else. Generally I think
we should have a policy of outputing human-readable standard units of
memory whenever displaying a memory quantity. Actually I thought we
already had that policy, hence things like...
The first counter
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
I did respond to it. The whole point is that the text output is for a
human to read. It should be printed in human-readable units. Not some
arbitrary internal unit of accounting that they then have to do
arithmetic on to make
So this is what I did about my two complaints earlier about the
explain buffer patch.
a) Changed the line description to Total Buffer Usage which at least
hints that it's something more akin to the Total runtime listed at
the bottom than the actual time.
b) Used units of memory -- I formatted
Greg Stark wrote:
b) Used units of memory -- I formatted them with 3 significant digits
(unless the unit is bytes or kB where that would be silly). It's just
what looked best to my eye.
How does this compare with what comes out of pg_size_pretty
(src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c)? I already
15 matches
Mail list logo
