-Original Message-
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 April 2006 00:28
To: Dave Page
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Get explain output of postgresql
-Original Message-
From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 April 2006 01:07
To: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Get explain output of postgresql in Tables
On Wed, Apr 12
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
* Allow EXPLAIN output to be more easily processed by scripts
Can I request an extension/additional point?
* Design EXPLAIN output to survive cut paste on mailing-lists
Being
Richard Huxton dev@archonet.com writes:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Actually, I've been wondering about better ways to handle this. One
thought is to come up with a non-human readable format that could easily
be cut and pasted into a website that would then provide something easy
to understand.
Tom Lane wrote:
I dislike the thought of encouraging people to post stuff in a
not-easily-readable format. They won't do it anyway, if it's not
default; look how we still can't get people to send EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output the first time.
It certainly needs to be one format for both purposes.
Richard Huxton wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I dislike the thought of encouraging people to post stuff in a
not-easily-readable format. They won't do it anyway, if it's not
default; look how we still can't get people to send EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output the first time.
It certainly needs to be one
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
NestedLoop cost=1.06..40.43 rows=5 width=244
JoinFilter publicTenk1Unique2=int4_tbl.f1
HashAggregate cost=1.06..1.11 rows=5 width=4/
/JoinFilter
/NestedLoop
Well, the downside is that such a format means explain
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-04-12 kell 10:29, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
NestedLoop cost=1.06..40.43 rows=5 width=244
JoinFilter publicTenk1Unique2=int4_tbl.f1
HashAggregate cost=1.06..1.11 rows=5 width=4/
/JoinFilter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I wonder if it would help much just to change EXPLAIN to indent with
something other than spaces?
I like that. Maybe even decrease the indenting a little more, and compress
some of the inner whitespace (such as the 2 spaces after the operator
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
NestedLoop cost=1.06..40.43 rows=5 width=244
JoinFilter publicTenk1Unique2=int4_tbl.f1
HashAggregate cost=1.06..1.11 rows=5 width=4/
/JoinFilter
/NestedLoop
Well, the downside is that such a format
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I wonder if it would help much just to change EXPLAIN to indent with
something other than spaces?
I like that. Maybe even decrease the indenting a little more, and compress
some of the inner whitespace (such as the 2 spaces after the operator name)
Might it be
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:45:41AM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
NestedLoop cost=1.06..40.43 rows=5 width=244
JoinFilter publicTenk1Unique2=int4_tbl.f1
HashAggregate cost=1.06..1.11 rows=5 width=4/
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 14:38 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:45:41AM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 04:53:20PM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
NestedLoop cost=1.06..40.43 rows=5 width=244
JoinFilter
Hi,
Germán Poó Caamaño escribió:
We can get the best of both worlds.
For instance, EXPLAIN and EXPLAIN ANALYZE with the usual output; but
also EXPLAIN XML and EXPLAIN ANALYZE XML with an XML syntax to be
used by programs.
I have a patch for this behavior, but unfortunately this is not
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-04-12 kell 14:38, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby:
Well, really just about anything you'd want to do with it in an XML
format. The advantage of SQL is that you can do it within the database,
and you don't have to worry about having something around that can
process XML.
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be nice to see the visual explain tool that Denis wrote --
did he finish it? Is it available somewhere? Are there any screenshots?
Red Hat did one of these some years ago:
http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/visualexplain.html
I don't see a
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-04-12 kell 17:42, kirjutas Alvaro Herrera:
It would be nice to see the visual explain tool that Denis wrote --
did he finish it? Is it available somewhere? Are there any screenshots?
IIRC there is a visual explain tool pin pgAdmin III
---
Hannu
: Re: [HACKERS] Get explain output of postgresql in Tables
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be nice to see the visual explain tool that Denis wrote --
did he finish it? Is it available somewhere? Are there any screenshots?
Red Hat did one of these some years ago:
http
Jim,
The list goes on. Like I said, you could do all these things with XML,
you just couldn't easily do them within the database.
XML -- Table conversion should be relatively easy with PL/Perl, PL/Java,
and/or an external language. Heck, if we could expand our XML tools
(Peter will have
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having an SQL format would make it easier to allow for a mode that
captures explain or explain analyze output from every query. Turn that
mode on, run an application's test suite, and now you have a pretty good
idea of how all the queries will run. Or,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 03:34:05PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
If we have an XML patch now, I say use it. I know I want it.
Certainly; XML is better than nothing. But since it shouldn't be hard to
add the ability to output a recordset at the same time...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering
Dave Page escribió:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be nice to see the visual explain tool that Denis wrote --
did he finish it? Is it available somewhere? Are there any screenshots?
Red Hat did one of these some years ago:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 07:28:25PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Dave Page escribi?:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be nice to see the visual explain tool that Denis wrote --
did he finish it? Is it available somewhere? Are there any
screenshots?
Red
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
* Allow EXPLAIN output to be more easily processed by scripts
Can I request an extension/additional point?
* Design EXPLAIN output to survive cut paste on mailing-lists
Being able to paste into a
Bruce Momjian wrote:
* Allow EXPLAIN output to be more easily processed by scripts
Can I request an extension/additional point?
* Design EXPLAIN output to survive cut paste on mailing-lists
Being able to paste into a web-form and get something readable formatted
back would be very
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:54:09AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
and provide some other means for
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:54:09AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
and provide some other means for producing machine-friendly
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 12:39:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Akshat Nair [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I get the grammar for the explain output?
There isn't one, it's just text and subject to change at a moment's
notice :-(. The past proposals that we format it a bit more rigidly
have so far
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
and provide some other means for producing machine-friendly output,
presumably in a table format.
How about (well-formed) XML
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
and provide some other means for producing machine-friendly output,
presumably in a table format.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
and provide some other means for producing machine-friendly output,
presumably in a
Akshat Nair [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I get the grammar for the explain output?
There isn't one, it's just text and subject to change at a moment's
notice :-(. The past proposals that we format it a bit more rigidly
have so far foundered for lack of a workable definition of what the
32 matches
Mail list logo
