From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query progress indication - an implementation |
Date: | 2009-06-30 07:48:41 |
Message-ID: | 1246348121.27964.26.camel@dn-x300-willij |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 07:04 +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Le 30 juin 2009 à 01:34, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> a écrit :
> > Basically I disagree that imperfect progress reports annoy users. I
> > think we can do better than reporting 250% done or having a percentage
> > that goes backward though. It would be quite tolerable (though perhaps
> > for no logical reason) to have a progress indicator which slows done
> > as it gets closer to 100% and never seems to make it to 100%.
>
> I guess bad stats are such an important problem in planning queries
> that a 250% progress is doing more good than harm in showing users how
> badly they need to review their analyze related settings.
Yeh, I agree. We can define it as "planned work", rather than actual. So
if the progress bar says 250% and query is still going at least you know
it is doing more work, rather than just being slow at doing the planned
work.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-06-30 08:02:42 | Re: Query progress indication - an implementation |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-06-30 07:43:39 | Re: Hello to all postgresql developers :) |