On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Why to capture only for Index Insert/Update and not for Read; is it >>> because Read will be always fast ot implementation complexity? >>> >> EXPLAIN ANALYZE already shows that on any SELECT that uses an index in >> some way. Or are you thinking on something else? > [...] > > Are you referring actual time in above print? > > The actual time is node execution time which in above kind of cases will > be: scanning the index + scanning the heap. I think it is not same what > you are planning to show for Insert/Update case. >
ah! good point! my current case is because of write performance, but will look at it a little -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitaciĆ³n Phone: +593 4 5107566 Cell: +593 987171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers