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 significant digits >> (unless the unit is bytes or kB where that would be silly). It's just >> what looked best to my eye. > > I wasn't aware we had consensus on making this change, which I see you > committed less than an hour after posting this.
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 in memory units instead of blocks. Given the controversy over whether to display averages or totals and given the issues raised towards the end of the thread that there are no comparable estimated values printed so there's no particular need to average them I opted for the minimal change of just labelling it "Total Buffer Usage". It didn't seem there was consensus to change it to averages per loop or to change the whole plan output to display totals. And I didn't see anyone argue that saying calling out that it was a total was a bad idea. 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 for smaller values. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers