On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. We could add every bell and whistle imaginable to the text
format and it still would not begin to approach the verbosity of the
machine-readable formats. Have you looked at them on a complex plan?
They are really,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. We could add every bell and whistle imaginable to the text
format and it still would not begin to approach the verbosity of the
machine-readable
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, FORMAT JSON) is often ridiculously
wide because each output list is printed on a single line.
Perhaps this is just a terminology difference but it seems
ridiculously *narrow* to me:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Greg Stark st...@mit.edu wrote:
Perhaps this is just a terminology difference but it seems
ridiculously *narrow* to me:
Try select * from pg_class.
Or as I said at the time... nobody liked anything about the patch
except that they didn't have to write it.
I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other
tool writers between the time this was committed six months ago and
now, but I haven't seen a single message from anyone who has actually
tried to write a tool. As you imply, I think
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other
tool writers between the time this was committed six months ago and
now, but I haven't seen a single message from
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other
tool writers between the time this was
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other
tool writers between the time this was committed six months ago and
now, but I haven't
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta.
I'm not opposed to that in principal, but in practice
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We can still hope that some feedback comes in
Tom Lane escribió:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta.
I'm not opposed to that in
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We can
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Is Redhat's Visual Explain still alive? And what about Tom Raney's stuff?
The core of Tom Raney's work was not so much the EXPLAIN format per se
(which is really mooted by the changes
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tom Lane escribió:
... It would be
really nice if we could get some feedback on the non-text formats
*before* they're set in stone.
Is Redhat's Visual Explain still alive? And what about Tom Raney's stuff?
Visual Explain is dead as far as
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Robert Haas escribió:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Is Redhat's Visual Explain still alive? And what about Tom Raney's stuff?
The core of Tom Raney's
I was recently experimenting with explain analyze and I realized there
are two things arguably wrong with the Buffers output in explain
analyze:
Firstly, it's printing out a number of buffers. We spent a lot of
effort making all GUC variables use units of memory like kB and MB
so the user should
On 2/9/10 11:50 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
Secondly, I think it's printing the total buffer usage for that node
across the whole query -- not the average per iteration. I agree that
the average is probably more confusing but it's what we do for every
other stat. Do we want to be consistent? Call
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 2/9/10 11:50 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
Secondly, I think it's printing the total buffer usage for that node
across the whole query -- not the average per iteration. I agree that
the average is probably more confusing but it's
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
I already have a patch to do this but it's a bit grotty -- do we want
to have a generic format string in snprintf in case we need it
somewhere else other than explain.c?
No. Custom format specifiers that take arguments will confuse the heck
out of gcc's
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'd prefer to have the average; it's very confusing to have an explain
row which has the cost per iteration, but the buffer usage per node.
The cost per iteration thing is IMO one of
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I'd prefer to have the average; it's very confusing to have an explain
row which has the cost per iteration, but the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, if you want to put forward a proposal to get rid of that approach
entirely, go ahead. But it doesn't seem like a good idea to me for
EXPLAIN to print some numbers according to
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, if you want to put forward a proposal to get rid of that approach
entirely, go ahead. But it doesn't seem like
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A more important point is that it would be a nontrivial change, both as
to code and documentation, and it's too late for such in 9.0. So what
we ought to be confining the discussion to
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
A more important point is that it would be a nontrivial change, both as
to code and documentation, and it's too late for such in 9.0. So what
we ought to be confining the discussion to right now is what 9.0 should
print
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A more important point is that it would be a nontrivial change, both as
to code and documentation, and it's too late
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Not in the least. Fixing EXPLAIN to consistently print totals would
involve changes in (at least) the treatment of estimated costs, and very
possibly some changes in the
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The reason that EXPLAIN prints things the way it does is so that actual
costs/times are comparable to estimated costs.
Oh, that was a thought I had along the way but forgot to mention in my
email: since the buffer usage isn't
Greg Stark st...@mit.edu writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The reason that EXPLAIN prints things the way it does is so that actual
costs/times are comparable to estimated costs.
Oh, that was a thought I had along the way but forgot to mention in my
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Perhaps instead of looking to change the actual times we should look
at a way to include total time spent in each node.
You can already get that by multiplying the displayed total time by the
number of loops. Robert does have
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... I wouldn't object to adding a total time field to the
machine-readable formats.
One possibility we discussed previously is to add some decimal places
to the relevant values when
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... I wouldn't object to adding a total time field to the
machine-readable formats.
One possibility we discussed
32 matches
Mail list logo
