Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> I think it's an awful choice of name; it has nothing to do with either > >> the functionality or the printed name of the field. > > > As an example, we might some day wish to include a summary of buffer > > information at the bottom too when 'buffers' is used. The proposed > > 'summary' option would cover that nicely, but 'timing' wouldn't. That's > > actually why I was thinking summary might be a good option to have. > > What, would this option then turn off the total-time displays by default?
To retain our current mixed behavior with explain vs. explain-analyze, we'd have to say it defaults to off for explain and on with analyze. I don't particularly like that, and would rather we just default it to on, but that would mean adjusting the regression tests. > I do not see that being a reasonable thing to do. Basically, you're > taking what seems like a very general-purpose option name and nailing > it down to mean "print planning time". You aren't going to be able > to change that later. No, that's not what I was suggesting to do and I disagree that we couldn't ever change it later. If we want it to mean "print planning time" and only ever that then I agree that calling it "summary" isn't a good option. > > No, but consider how the docs for the current 'timing' option would have > > to be rewritten. > > Well, sure, they'd have to be rewritten, but I think this definition > would actually be more orthogonal. This definition would have two completely different meanings- one for when analyze is used, and one for when it isn't. > > We would also have to say something like "the default when not using > > 'analyze' is off, but with 'analyze' the default is on" which seems > > pretty grotty to me. > > But the default for TIMING already does depend on ANALYZE. I would argue that timing can only actually be used with analyze today, which makes sense when you consider that timing is about enabling or disabling per-node timing information. Redefining it to mean something else isn't particularly different from redefining 'summary' later to mean something else. > > Then again, from a *user's* perspective, it should just be included by > > default. > > Actually, the reason it hasn't gotten included is probably that the > use-case for it is very small. If you just do psql \timing on an > EXPLAIN, you get something close enough to the planning time. I don't > mind adding this as an option, but claiming that it's so essential > that it should be there by default is silly. People would have asked > for it years ago if it were all that important. I don't buy this argument. Planning time is (hopefully, anyway...) a rather small amount of time which means that the actual results from \timing (or, worse, the timing info from other tools like pgAdmin) is quite far off. On a local instance with a simple plan, you can get an order-of-magnitude difference between psql's \timing output and the actual planning time, throw in a few or even 10s of ms of network latency and you might as well forget about trying to figure out what the planning time actually is. > > Having the summary option exposed would also provide a way for Andres to > > do what he wanted to originally from the referred-to thread. There may > > be other pieces to address if the plan might involve platform-specific > > details about sorts, etc, but from what he was suggesting that wouldn't > > be an issue for his initial case, and as Robert mentioned on that > > thread, we could do something about those other cases too. I don't > > think having 'timing' or 'whatever controls showing planning and total > > execution times at the bottom' would make sense as an option to disable > > showing platform-specific sort or hashing info though. > > Again, you're proposing that you can add an option today and totally > redefine what it means tomorrow. I do not think that's a plan. The above paragraph was intended to suggest that we could add 'summary' now to control the last few lines which are displayed after the plan (which would be a consistent definition of 'summary', even if we added things to the summary contents later) and that we could then add an independent option to control the output of plan nodes like 'sort' to allow for platform-independent output. I was not suggesting that 'summary' would control what 'sort' produces. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature