On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Mike wrote:
Have any tool authors stepped up and committed resources to utilizing
this feature in the near term?
Even before the easier to read format was available, there were already
multiple EXPLAIN analysis tools floating around, some of them web-based
like you're
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 23:58 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, I don't think that the fact that we are producing machine-readable
output means we can just ignore the human side of it. It is more than
likely that such output will be read by both machines and humans.
Obviously, we need to
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 23:58 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, I don't think that the fact that we are producing machine-readable
output means we can just ignore the human side of it. It is more than
likely that such output will be read by both machines and humans.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 23:58 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, I don't think that the fact that we are producing machine-readable
output means we can just ignore the human side of it. It is more than
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Another design issue is this: The root node of an XML document is
ideally a distinguished element that can't occur within itself.
auto-explain doesn't seem to be doing this.
Huh? I get (for explain 2+2)
explain
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Another design issue is this: The root node of an XML document is
ideally a distinguished element that can't occur within itself.
auto-explain doesn't seem to be doing this.
Huh? I
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 15:42 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Have you actually looked at a logfile with this in it? A simple
stylesheet won't do at all. What you get is not an XML document but a
text document with little bits of XML embedded in it. So you would need
a program to parse that file
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 16:51 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
I argue that a sufficiently complicated explain output will never be
easily navigated in a text browser, however much you would like it. If
you do a where clause with 100 nested ANDs (which occasionally happens
here), I don't think you'll be
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 15:42 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Have you actually looked at a logfile with this in it? A simple
stylesheet won't do at all. What you get is not an XML document but a
text document with little bits of XML embedded in it. So you would need
a
Andrew Dunstan escribió:
STATEMENT: SELECT 1 AS one;
LOG: duration: 0.008 ms plan:
Plan
Node-TypeResult/Node-Type
Startup-Cost0.00/Startup-Cost
Total-Cost0.01/Total-Cost
Plan-Rows1/Plan-Rows
Plan-Width0/Plan-Width
/Plan
I think what this says is that
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan escribió:
STATEMENT: SELECT 1 AS one;
LOG: duration: 0.008 ms plan:
Plan
Node-TypeResult/Node-Type
Startup-Cost0.00/Startup-Cost
Total-Cost0.01/Total-Cost
Plan-Rows1/Plan-Rows
Plan-Width0/Plan-Width
/Plan
I
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:11 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That will just make things worse. And it will break if the XML includes
any expression that contains a line break.
Then escape the expressions using CDATA or such... I'm sure it would be
possible to make sure it's one line and rely on
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:42:00 -0400
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
One thing I have noticed that we should talk about is that the
explain XML output doesn't contain the query that is being explained.
That's unfortunate - it means that any logfile processor will need to
extract the
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:31 +0200, Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:11 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That will just make things worse. And it will break if the XML includes
any expression that contains a line break.
Then escape the expressions using CDATA or such... I'm sure it
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:41 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Csaba Nagy wrote:
Then why you bother calling it machine readable at all ? Would you
really read your auto-explain output on the DB server ? I doubt that's
the common usage scenario, I would expect that most people would let a
Csaba Nagy wrote:
Then why you bother calling it machine readable at all ? Would you
really read your auto-explain output on the DB server ? I doubt that's
the common usage scenario, I would expect that most people would let a
tool extract/summarize it and definitely process it somewhere else
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:11 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That will just make things worse. And it will break if the XML includes
any expression that contains a line break.
Then escape the expressions using CDATA or such... I'm sure it would be
possible to make sure
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 18:07 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Csaba Nagy wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:11 +0200, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Well, the right solution would actually be NOT to use CDATA but to
replace a literal linefeed with the XML numeric escape #x0a; , but I
really don't think
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think I might be starting to understand what you're getting at here.
Let me check: I think what you're saying is that the Expr node is
potentially useful to clients for identifying where in the tree the
Exprs are, even without specific knowledge
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I think I might be starting to understand what you're getting at here.
Let me check: I think what you're saying is that the Expr node is
potentially useful to clients for identifying
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:11:47 -0400
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I have to admit to total confusion. The idea in the
last paragraph seems reasonable to me, but since I don't understand
the other alternative, I can't say whether it's better or worse. I
wonder if we
Mike i...@snappymail.ca writes:
Have any tool authors stepped up and committed resources to utilizing
this feature in the near term?
I don't think anyone's promised much. If you want to have a go at using
it, we'd be very happy.
I'm guessing that my vision likely exceeds the scope of this
Tom Lane wrote:
Mike i...@snappymail.ca writes:
Have any tool authors stepped up and committed resources to utilizing
this feature in the near term?
I don't think anyone's promised much. If you want to have a go at using
it, we'd be very happy.
I'm guessing that my vision
On Tuesday 11 August 2009 21:59:48 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Mike i...@snappymail.ca writes:
Have any tool authors stepped up and committed resources to utilizing
this feature in the near term?
I don't think anyone's promised much. If you want to have a go at using
it,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Good. I had a look at this for a little while yesterday. I built it, did an
install, loaded auto_explain and then ran the regression tests. I didn't
like the output much. It looks like the XML has been dumbed down to fit
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
find it more tiresome to read. In effect we are swapping horizontal
expansion for vertical expansion. It would be nicer to be able to
fit a plan into a screen.
Isn't that what text format is for?
In my
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Good. I had a look at this for a little while yesterday. I built it, did an
install, loaded auto_explain and then ran the regression tests. I didn't
like the output much. It looks like the XML has
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I takle it back. It's still there at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00485.php
posted 3 days ago.
Hmm, I think the archive website must be mangling that somehow.
What I have in the code I'm reviewing is
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Revised patch attached. I'm not convinced this is as good as it can
be, but I've been looking at this patch for so long that I'm starting
to get cross-eyed, and I'd like to Tom at
Andres Freund wrote:
I produced/mailed a relaxng version for a a bit older version and I plan to
refresh and document it once the format seems suitably stable. I am not sure
it is yet. If yes, this should not take that long...
(Relaxng because you easily can convert it into most other XML
On Monday 10 August 2009 14:39:22 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
I produced/mailed a relaxng version for a a bit older version and I plan
to refresh and document it once the format seems suitably stable. I am
not sure it is yet. If yes, this should not take that long...
Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009 14:39:22 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
I produced/mailed a relaxng version for a a bit older version and I plan
to refresh and document it once the format seems suitably stable. I am
not sure it is yet. If yes, this should
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There are still some open issues:
* I still think we need a written spec for the non-text output formats.
Where would we put this in the documentation? Seems like it might
need a
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
There are still some open issues:
* I still think we need a written spec for the non-text output formats.
Where
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
FilterExprText(f1 gt; 0)/Text/Expr/Filter
This would leave room to add additional properties beside the text,
and not break existing clients when we do it.
Well, there you
Robert Haas escribió:
What the hell? I have every version of that patch I've ever submitted
in ~/patch/explain-as-submitted, and that extra semicolon is not there
in any of them. Furthermore, when I open up the attachment from my
sent mail, the semicolon isn't there either. Yet I see it at
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
FilterExprText(f1 gt; 0)/Text/Expr/Filter
This would leave room to add additional properties beside the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Uh, no, I see one container and a property. If we do just
FilterExpr(f1 gt; 0)/Expr/Filter
then where do we put additional information about the expression
when the time
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Uh, no, I see one container and a property. If we do just
FilterExpr(f1 gt; 0)/Expr/Filter
then where do
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I may be thick as a post here and say oh, I'm a moron when you
explain this to me, but I still don't understand why that would
require the XML notation to interpose an intermediate node. Why can't
filter node itself can be the labelled container?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I may be thick as a post here and say oh, I'm a moron when you
explain this to me, but I still don't understand why that would
require the XML notation to interpose an intermediate
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The way we have this set up, there's a distinction between properties
and groups, which AFAICS we have to have in order to have directly
comparable structures in XML and JSON. Didn't
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The way we have this set up, there's a distinction between properties
and groups, which AFAICS we have to have in
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Revised patch attached. I'm not convinced this is as good as it can
be, but I've been looking at this patch for so long that I'm starting
to get cross-eyed, and I'd like to Tom at least have a look at this
and assess it before we run out of
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Revised patch attached. I'm not convinced this is as good as it can
be, but I've been looking at this patch for so long that I'm starting
to get cross-eyed, and I'd like to Tom at least
Robert Haas wrote:
The one significant representational choice that I'm aware of having
made is to use nested tags rather than attributes in the XML format.
This seems to me to offer several advantages. First, it's clearly
impossible to standardize on attributes, because attributes can only
On Monday 10 August 2009 01:21:35 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
The one significant representational choice that I'm aware of having
made is to use nested tags rather than attributes in the XML format.
This seems to me to offer several advantages. First, it's clearly
Andres Freund wrote:
BTW, has anyone tried validating the XML at all? I just looked very
briefly at the patch at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01944.php and
I noticed this which makes me suspicious:
+ if (es.format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_XML)
+
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
BTW, has anyone tried validating the XML at all? I just looked very
briefly at the patch at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01944.php and
I noticed this which makes me suspicious:
+ if (es.format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_XML)
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Monday 10 August 2009 01:21:35 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That ; after the attribute is almost certainly wrong. This is a classic
case of what I was talking about a month or two ago. Building up XML (or
any structured doc, really, XML is not special in
On Monday 10 August 2009 02:48:29 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
BTW, has anyone tried validating the XML at all? I just looked very
briefly at the patch at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01944.php and
I noticed this which makes
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
BTW, has anyone tried validating the XML at all? I just looked very
briefly at the patch at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01944.php and
I noticed
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I takle it back. It's still there at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00485.php
posted 3 days ago.
Hmm, I think the archive website must be mangling that somehow.
What I have in the code I'm reviewing is
if (es.format ==
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I takle it back. It's still there at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00485.php
posted 3 days ago.
Hmm, I think the archive website must be mangling that
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Monday 10 August 2009 01:21:35 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That ; after the attribute is almost certainly wrong. This is a classic
case of what I was talking about a month or two ago.
On Monday 10 August 2009 02:53:16 Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On Monday 10 August 2009 01:21:35 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
That ; after the attribute is almost certainly wrong. This is a
classic case of what I was talking about a month or two ago. Building up
XML
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Adding the notion of opening a 'empty' Group together with X_OPENCLOSE or
handling of X_OPENING|X_CLOSING would allow to handle empty tags like in
ExplainOneUtility (Notify /).
Yeah, I was just wondering what to do with the Notify / code. I'm
not
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Adding the notion of opening a 'empty' Group together with X_OPENCLOSE or
handling of X_OPENING|X_CLOSING would allow to handle empty tags like in
ExplainOneUtility (Notify /).
Yeah, I
On Monday 10 August 2009 03:34:36 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Adding the notion of opening a 'empty' Group together with X_OPENCLOSE
or handling of X_OPENING|X_CLOSING would allow to handle
Robert Haas wrote:
One subtle point that isn't documented and probably should be is that
JSON can't support a container that behaves partly like a list and
partly like a hash, as XML can. So for example in XML a Plan tag
could have children like Startup-Cost (one each) and could also have
its
On Monday 10 August 2009 03:43:22 Andres Freund wrote:
On Monday 10 August 2009 03:34:36 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
Adding the notion of opening a 'empty' Group together with X_OPENCLOSE
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Revised patch attached. I'm not convinced this is as good as it can
be, but I've been looking at this patch for so long that I'm starting
to get cross-eyed, and I'd like to Tom at least have a look at this
and assess it before we run out of
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The reason for this regression is that Tom asked me to change
ExplainStmt to just carry a list of nodes and to do all the parsing in
ExplainQuery. Unfortunately, the TupleDesc is
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The reason for this regression is that Tom asked me to change
ExplainStmt to just carry a list of nodes and to do all the parsing in
ExplainQuery.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The reason for this regression is that Tom asked me to change
ExplainStmt to just carry a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
(2) Is it worth making this work?
No, I don't think so. The odds of such a test ever showing anything
interesting seem minimal.
plpgsql's inability to cope with the case would be nice to fix, but
I'm not holding my breath for it...
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Well, the whole explain output format is pretty idiosyncratic, and I
had to work pretty hard to beat it into submission. I think that it
would not be totally trivial to do what you're suggesting here because
it would
Hi Robert, Hi all,
On Thursday 30 July 2009 05:05:48 Robert Haas wrote:
OK, here's the updated version of my machine-readable explain output
patch. This needed heavy updating as a result of the changes that Tom
asked me to make to the explain options patch, and the further changes
he made
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Hi Robert, Hi all,
On Thursday 30 July 2009 05:05:48 Robert Haas wrote:
OK, here's the updated version of my machine-readable explain output
patch. This needed heavy updating as a result of the changes that Tom
asked me
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
- Currently a value scan looks like »Values Scan on *VALUES*« What about
adding its alias at least in verbose mode? This currently is inconsistent
with
other scans.
I don't
On Sunday 02 August 2009 23:34:04 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Hi Robert, Hi all,
On Thursday 30 July 2009 05:05:48 Robert Haas wrote:
OK, here's the updated version of my machine-readable explain output
patch. This needed
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The reason for this regression is that Tom asked me to change
ExplainStmt to just carry a list of nodes and to do all the parsing in
ExplainQuery. Unfortunately, the TupleDesc is constructed by
ExplainResultDesc() which can't trivially be changed to
On Monday 03 August 2009 01:57:48 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
- The regression tests are gone?
Tom added some that look adequate to me to create_index.sql, as a
separate commit, so I don't think I need to do this in my patch any
more. Maybe some of those
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, of course the existing tests are not going to exercise XML or
JSON output format. Dunno how much we care. I had supposed that
XML or JSON would always emit all the fields and leave it to the
recipient to suppress what
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
One part where I find the code flow ugly is 'did_boilerplate' in
report_triggers/its callsites.
I can see why it is done that way, but its not exactly obvious to read when
you want to find out how the format looks.
Hi Robert,
On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
I have posted a new version of this patch on a separate thread; do you
have time to re-review?
Yes, I have seen it. I plan to spent some time on it tonight
On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
One part where I find the code flow ugly is 'did_boilerplate' in
report_triggers/its callsites.
I can see why it is done that way, but its not exactly obvious to read
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
I am quite happy that the annoyance over a patch of mine helped you starting
to work on this ;-)
Thanks for all the work.
You're welcome, thanks for all your reviewing. For the record, I
wasn't annoyed BY the patch; I was
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Friday 31 July 2009 23:13:54 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
I have posted a new version of this patch on a separate thread; do you
have time to
Hi Robert, Hi All,
On Sunday 19 July 2009 04:29:42 Andres Freund wrote:
I did not yet look at the contrib/autoexplain portions. Will do that on
Monday or so.
Early Monday:
Looks fine, except that the new auto_explain.log_format parameter is not
documented.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Thursday 18 June 2009 06:01:13 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
One of the common pitfalls of XML is that designers think first in terms
of the XML representation before being clear on the abstract structure
of what they want to represent
The other aspect is that designing a useful XML format is
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 16:22:27 Robert Haas wrote:
1. It didn't seem very wise to go with the approach of trying to do
EVERYTHING with attributes. If I did that, then I'd either get really
long lines that were not easily readable, or I'd have to write some
kind of complicated line wrapping
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 16:22:27 Robert Haas wrote:
1. It didn't seem very wise to go with the approach of trying to do
EVERYTHING with attributes. If I did that, then I'd either get really
long lines that were not
On 06/17/2009 04:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 16:22:27 Robert Haas wrote:
1. It didn't seem very wise to go with the approach of trying to do
EVERYTHING with attributes. If I did that, then I'd either get really
long lines that were not easily readable, or I'd have to
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 22:51:37 Robert Haas wrote:
I agree. I'm just not seeing the need for an *explicit*
categorization contained within the data itself. For one thing, AIUI,
that's the job of things like an XML Schema, which Andres Freund has
already agreed to write, and I would expect
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:21:21 Tom Lane wrote:
As a concrete example of what I'm thinking about, I'd hope that PgAdmin
would be able to display a graphical summary of a plan tree, and then
pop up measurements associated with one of the nodes when you
right-click on that node. To do this, it
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 20:21:21 Tom Lane wrote:
As a concrete example of what I'm thinking about, I'd hope that PgAdmin
would be able to display a graphical summary of a plan tree, and then
pop up measurements associated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:32:51PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 06/17/2009 04:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 16:22:27 Robert Haas wrote:
1. It didn't seem very wise to go with the approach of trying to do
EVERYTHING with
Hi,
On 06/12/2009 07:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
If you don't like the syntax, please argue about that on the generic
explain options v2 thread. Let's try to use this thread to discuss
the output format, about which I spent a good deal of time agonizing.
I spent some time playing around with the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Startup-Cost1710.98/Startup-Cost
Total-Cost1710.98/Total-Cost
Plan-Rows72398/Plan-Rows
Plan-Width4/Plan-Width
Actual-Startup-Time136.595/Actual-Startup-Time
Actual-Total-Time136.595/Actual-Total-Time
On 06/16/2009 02:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
Startup-Cost1710.98/Startup-Cost
Total-Cost1710.98/Total-Cost
Plan-Rows72398/Plan-Rows
Plan-Width4/Plan-Width
Actual-Startup-Time136.595/Actual-Startup-Time
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 06/16/2009 02:14 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de
wrote:
Startup-Cost1710.98/Startup-Cost
Total-Cost1710.98/Total-Cost
Plan-Rows72398/Plan-Rows
On 06/16/2009 03:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, one problem with this is that the actual values are not costs,
but times, and the estimated values are not times, but costs. The
planner estimates the cost of operations on an arbitrary scale where
the cost of a sequential page fetch is 1.0.
Robert Haas wrote:
3. We have existing precedent for this design pattern in, e.g. table_to_xml
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/functions-xml.html
Tables are flat, explain output is not.
If there is a relationship between the items then that needs to be
expressed in
On 06/16/2009 03:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
3. We have existing precedent for this design pattern in, e.g.
table_to_xml
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/functions-xml.html
Tables are flat, explain output is not.
Comparing Greg's approach with Robert's it seems to me that
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
3. We have existing precedent for this design pattern in, e.g.
table_to_xml
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/functions-xml.html
Tables are flat, explain output is not.
If there
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
How would you model something like:
plans
plan ... /plan
plan ... /plan
...
/plans
otherwise?
There are potentially unlimited number of child nodes - AppendNode for
example can have any number of them. Sure, you
Robert Haas wrote:
If there is a relationship between the items then that needs to be expressed
in the XML structure, either by use of child nodes or attributes. Relying on
the sequence of nodes, if that's what you're doing, is not a good idea, and
I'm not doing that. Period, full
Hi,
On 06/16/2009 04:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Andres Freundand...@anarazel.de wrote:
How would you model something like:
plans
plan .../plan
plan .../plan
...
/plans
otherwise?
There are potentially unlimited number of child nodes - AppendNode for
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
If there is a relationship between the items then that needs to be
expressed
in the XML structure, either by use of child nodes or attributes. Relying
on
the sequence of nodes, if that's what
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
