Hello, Le jeu. 12 déc. 2024 à 12:57, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdoki...@tantorlabs.com> a écrit :
> > On 01.08.2023 23:29, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 3 Jul 2023, at 18:34, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > >> > >>> On 8 Jun 2023, at 19:49, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ah...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:56 PM Gregory Stark (as CFM) < > stark....@gmail.com <mailto:stark....@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> This patch was marked Returned with Feedback and then later Waiting on > >>> Author. And it hasn't had any updates since January. What is the state > >>> on this feedback? If it's already done we can set the patch to Ready > >>> for Commit and if not do you disagree with the proposed changes? > >>> > >>> If there is a consensus to modify the test cases' output, I am willing > to > >>> make the necessary changes and adjust the patch accordingly. However, > >>> if there is a preference to keep the output of certain test cases > unchanged, > >>> I can rebase and modify the patch accordingly to accommodate those > preferences. > >> As there hasn't been any other comments I suggest updating your patch to > >> address Tom's comments to see if we can make progress here. > > Since there hasn't been any updates here, and the thread has been > stalled, I'm > > marking this returned with feedback. Please feel free to resubmit a > version of > > the patch addressing comments to a future CF. > > > > -- > > Daniel Gustafsson > > > > > > > > Hi everybody, > > When the total number of returned tuples is less than the number of > loops currently shows 'rows = 0'. This can mislead users into thinking > that no rows were returned at all, even though some might have appeared > occasionally. For example, if there is 1 tuple over 100 loops, the > average is 0.01 rows per loop, but as displayed it simply looks like zero. > > To clarify this situation, it has been suggested that display rows with > two decimal places in scenarios where 'loops > 1 && ntuples < loops'. In > other words, show something like 'rows = 0.01' instead of 'rows=0'. This > minor change would make it evident that rows did occur, just very > infrequently. > > For all other cases, the current formatting would remain the same. This > approach aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of query execution > behavior without introducing unnecessary complexity or false precision. > > I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback on this proposal. > > Thanks for your patch, this looks like a very interesting feature that I'd like to see in a future release. It did a quick run: patch OK, make OK, make install OK, but make check fails quite a lot on partition_prune.sql. I guess it would need some work on partition_prune.sql tests and perhaps also on the docs. Thanks again. -- Guillaume.
