| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid displaying unnecessary "Recheck Cond" in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output if the bitmap is non-lossy |
| Date: | 2020-08-24 14:04:22 |
| Message-ID: | 2561231.1598277862@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As specified in $subject, if the bitmap constructed by bitmap index
> scan is non-lossy i.e. row-level bitmap, then showing "Recheck Cond"
> in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output is pointless. However in EXPLAIN without
> ANALYZE we can't say the bitmap is actually a non-lossy one, as we
> don't actually construct the "original" bitmap, so showing "Recheck
> Cond" in this case makes sense.
I do not think this change makes even a little bit of sense.
The recheck condition is part of the plan structure, it is not
execution statistics.
I compare this proposal to having EXPLAIN suppress plan tree nodes
entirely if they weren't executed. We don't do that and it
wouldn't be an improvement. Especially not for non-text output
formats, where the schema of fields that are presented ought to
be fixed for any given plan tree.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-24 14:17:44 | Re: Issue with past commit: Allow fractional input values for integer GUCs ... |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-24 13:45:42 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |