From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
Date: | 2009-12-08 02:58:57 |
Message-ID: | 20091208115857.482E.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Here is an updated patch per discussion.
* Counters are accumulative. They contain I/Os by child nodes.
* Text format shows all counters.
* Add "shared_" prefix to variables representing shared buffers/blocks.
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro escreveu:
> > I think the current output is enough and useful in normal use.
> > We can use XML or JSON format for more details.
> >
> I don't think it is a good idea to have different information in different
> formats. I'm with Robert; *don't* do that.
I'm afraid of the human-unreadability of the text format, that is discussed
in the YAML format thread. ...but I found we say the following in the docs.
XML or JSON output contains the same information as the text output format
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-explain.html
Obviously I should not hide any information only in the text format.
The new output will be: (in one line)
Shared Blocks: (hit=2 read=1641 written=0) Local Blocks: (hit=0 read=0 written=0) Temp Blocks: (read=1443 written=1443)
> There are nodes that don't read or write blocks.
This will be impossible now because we re-defined the meaning of counters
as "accumulated number of I/O". Even if the node never read or write blocks,
it might contain some child nodes with I/O.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
explain_buffers_20091208.patch | application/octet-stream | 20.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-08 03:01:13 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-08 02:57:45 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |