[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2702?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15156260#comment-15156260
]
James Taylor commented on PHOENIX-2702:
---------------------------------------
bq. the bytes, would only be counted for the column family we used for the
guide posts.
Yes, that's correct.
bq. Would be nice to show the total over all CFs used
Agreed. We know the other CFs in use, but we'd need to iterate through the
guideposts to gather that info. Separate JIRA?
+1 on the patch. One minor nit, though: instead of this:
{code}
CLIENT 61-CHUNK ROWS 7069060 BYTES 629146340 PARALLEL 1-WAY RANGE SCAN
{code}
I'd tend toward this:
{code}
CLIENT 61-CHUNK 7069060 ROWS 629146340 BYTES PARALLEL 1-WAY RANGE SCAN
{code}
or maybe this:
{code}
CLIENT 61-CHUNK 7069060-ROW 629146340-BYTES PARALLEL 1-WAY RANGE SCAN
{code}
> Show estimate rows and bytes touched for explain plan.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-2702
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2702
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Attachments: PHOENIX-2702.txt
>
>
> We can already estimate the size of a table (both rows and uncompressed
> bytes) with q query like this:
> {code}
> SELECT physical_name AS table_name, SUM(guide_posts_row_count) AS est_rows,
> SUM(guide_posts_width) AS est_size from SYSTEM.STATS GROUP BY physical_name;
> {code}
> During the planning phase we have more information, though. So we can report
> the actual numbers for a query during an explain since we have that info
> there anyway (we filtered the guidepost already with the key info provided in
> the query).
> I might whip up a quick patch for this.
> (Could also go further and add a est_count, est_size UDF for this, but that
> would be a bit harder to get hooked up at the right places, I think, and the
> meaning would be ambiguous)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
