Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On 04/17/2014 01:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: I'll go change it. Thanks for fixing this. The new name "Execution time" is much clearer. -- Andreas Karlsson -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
I found a bit confusing, when planning time is greater total time, so +1 for execution time. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: >> Where are we on this? I still see: > >> test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1; >>QUERY PLAN >> >> >>Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.001..0.001 >> rows=1 loops=1) >>Planning time: 0.009 ms >> -->Total runtime: 0.009 ms >> (3 rows) > > There seemed to be a clear majority of votes in favor of changing it to > say "Execution time". Robert was arguing for no change, but I don't think > that's tenable in view of the fact that the addition of the "Planning > time" line is already a change, and one that makes the old wording > confusing. > > I'll go change it. > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
Bruce Momjian writes: > Where are we on this? I still see: > test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1; >QUERY PLAN > > >Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.001..0.001 > rows=1 loops=1) >Planning time: 0.009 ms > -->Total runtime: 0.009 ms > (3 rows) There seemed to be a clear majority of votes in favor of changing it to say "Execution time". Robert was arguing for no change, but I don't think that's tenable in view of the fact that the addition of the "Planning time" line is already a change, and one that makes the old wording confusing. I'll go change it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 07:13:46PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > The problem I'm having with the way it stands now is that one would > > reasonably expect that "Total time" is the total of all times counted > > by EXPLAIN, including main plan execution time, trigger firing time, > > and now planning time. Since it is not, any longer, a total, I think > > renaming it would be a good idea. I'm not wedded to "execution time" > > in particular, but I don't like "total". > > Agreed. Where are we on this? I still see: test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1; QUERY PLAN Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=1) Planning time: 0.009 ms --> Total runtime: 0.009 ms (3 rows) -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > The problem I'm having with the way it stands now is that one would > reasonably expect that "Total time" is the total of all times counted > by EXPLAIN, including main plan execution time, trigger firing time, > and now planning time. Since it is not, any longer, a total, I think > renaming it would be a good idea. I'm not wedded to "execution time" > in particular, but I don't like "total". Agreed. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm not really feeling a compelling need to change that. We've been >> displaying total runtime - described exactly that way - for many >> releases and it's surely is confusing to the novice that the time >> reported can be much less than the time reported by psql's \timing >> option, usually because of planning time. > I think that has a lot more to do with network roundtrip time and > protocol/serialization overhead. The problem I'm having with the way it stands now is that one would reasonably expect that "Total time" is the total of all times counted by EXPLAIN, including main plan execution time, trigger firing time, and now planning time. Since it is not, any longer, a total, I think renaming it would be a good idea. I'm not wedded to "execution time" in particular, but I don't like "total". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm not really feeling a compelling need to change that. We've been > displaying total runtime - described exactly that way - for many > releases and it's surely is confusing to the novice that the time > reported can be much less than the time reported by psql's \timing > option, usually because of planning time. I think that has a lot more to do with network roundtrip time and protocol/serialization overhead. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Geoghegan writes: >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. > >> Isn't it perhaps a little confusing that "Planning time" may well >> exceed "Total runtime"? > > Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ? I'm not really feeling a compelling need to change that. We've been displaying total runtime - described exactly that way - for many releases and it's surely is confusing to the novice that the time reported can be much less than the time reported by psql's \timing option, usually because of planning time. But adding the planning time to the output seems to me to make that better, not worse. If the user can't figure out that runtime != planning time, I'm not sure they'll be able to figure out execution time != planning time, either. One of the reasons it's called "Total runtime", or so I've always assumed, is because it's more inclusive than the time shown for the root node of the plan tree. Specifically, it includes the time required to fire triggers. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
Gavin Flower writes: > Can I assume: > 'Total runtime' is 'elapsed time' > and > 'Execution time' is 'processor time'. No. It's going to be elapsed time, either way. > In a parallel implementation, one would likely want both. When and if we have that, we can argue about what to measure. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On 03/02/14 09:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ? +1 If the planning was ever made into a parallel process, then 'elapsed time' would be less than the 'processor time'. So what does 'Execution time' mean? Can I assume: 'Total runtime' is 'elapsed time' and 'Execution time' is 'processor time'. In a parallel implementation, one would likely want both. Possible this is not an issue now, and I'm thinking to far ahead! Cheers, Gavin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ? +1 -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. > Isn't it perhaps a little confusing that "Planning time" may well > exceed "Total runtime"? Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
