On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
> > aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
> > alter the algorithms.
>
> What do people think ab
I'm not averse to it. I think it's a good option and I support trace_sort (it really is more of a trace).On 10/3/05, Tom Lane <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Simon Riggs <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements> aimed at understanding external
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
> aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
> alter the algorithms.
What do people think about putting something like this into 8.1?
Strictly speaking it'
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 19:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
> aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
> alter the algorithms.
Minor update of patch, use this version please.
> Best Regards, Simon R
