From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling |
Date: | 2006-05-12 10:46:38 |
Message-ID: | 1147430798.3465.131.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 12:22 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:37:03PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:37:04PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > > Note that the resulting times still include the overhead actually
> > > incurred, I didn't filter it out. I want the times to remain reflecting
> > > reality as closely as possible.
> >
> > If we actually know the overhead I think it'd be very useful at times to
> > be able to remove it, especially if you're actually trying to compare to
> > the planner estimates. Maybe worth adding an option to the command?
>
> It's not quite as easy as that unfortunatly. Each node can estimate how
> much overhead was incurred on that node. However, each node also
> includes as part of its timing the overhead of all its decendant nodes.
> So to really remove the overhead, the top-level would have to recurse
> through the whole tree to decide what to remove.
Agreed
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dhanaraj M | 2006-05-12 11:30:51 | Clarification required |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-12 10:22:54 | Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2006-05-12 13:00:13 | Re: BEGIN inside transaction should be an error |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-12 10:22:54 | Re: [PATCH] Improve EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead by sampling |