"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this sound like a reasonable approach? Also, how important do
> people think it is to use explain analyze output instead of just doing
> SELECT count(*) FROM (query you actually want to test)? (The select
> count(*) wrapper is just a means to throw away the results since we
> don't really want to worry about data transfer times, etc). The testing
> I've done (http://stats.distributed.net/~decibel/base.log) shows explain
> analyze to be almost 5x slower than select count(*), so it seems a big
> gain if we can avoid that.
Advertising
I'd go with the select count(*) --- I can't imagine that we will be
trying to model the behavior of anything so complex that we really need
explain analyze output. (On the other hand, recording explain output is
a good idea to make sure you are testing what you think you are testing.)
Actually, it might be worth using "select count(null)", which should
avoid the calls to int8inc. I think this doesn't matter so much in CVS
tip, but certainly in existing releases the palloc overhead involved is
noticeable.
BTW, 5x is an awful lot; I've not noticed overheads more than about 2x.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
