From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | legrand legrand <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: explain (verbose off, normalized) vs query planid |
Date: | 2018-05-15 21:02:28 |
Message-ID: | 21912.1526418148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:45 PM, legrand legrand
> <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Would there be some functional or performances reasons to prefer jumbling to
>> hashing normalized plan text?
> Basically, I would be nervous about the idea of an EXPLAIN output
> that's required to reflect all and only the plan details that should
> be jumbled. The "normalized" option to EXPLAIN which you mentioned
> upthread doesn't exist today...
Indeed, and if we did write it, I think it would largely consist of
throwing away info that a jumbling mechanism could ignore far more easily.
Not to mention that we'd have to expend the cycles to emit a text
representation that we didn't actually have use for. It sounds like a
complete loser both in terms of coding effort and runtime performance.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-15 21:02:43 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-15 20:57:01 | Re: index scan over composite type |