From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN omits schema? |
Date: | 2007-06-13 22:05:55 |
Message-ID: | 18945.1181772355@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it
> into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison
> between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc.
Sure you can, just not in SQL ;-)
Given the amount of trouble we'd have to go to to put the data into a
pure SQL format, I don't think that's exactly an ideal answer either.
I'm for making the raw EXPLAIN output be in a simple and robust format,
which people can then postprocess however they want --- including
forcing it into SQL if that's what they want. But just because we're a
SQL database doesn't mean we should think SQL is the best answer to
every problem.
While I'm surely not an XML fanboy, it looks better suited to this
problem than a pure relational representation would be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-06-13 22:06:03 | Re: tsearch_core patch: permissions and security issues |
Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-06-13 22:04:57 | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |