From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Explain buffers display units. |
Date: | 2010-02-16 16:35:30 |
Message-ID: | 407d949e1002160835v79521e2j31a3f0f92e44fe2c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Greg Stark escribió:
>>> Oops. Well, I would like to know if I'm in the minority and have to
>>> roll this back before I fix that.
>
>> My personal opinion is that displaying number of blocks in all EXPLAIN
>> formats is more consistent.
>
> FWIW, I vote for number of blocks too. I tend to see those numbers as
> more indicative of number of I/O requests than amount of memory used.
Ok, that's 3:1 against.
I suspect we'll revisit this once you see all the other
instrumentation I plan for 9.1. It will be much easier to make sense
of all the numbers in consistent units. But we'll see then.
I won't be able to do the rollback until about 11pm EST again today.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-16 17:05:42 | Re: buildfarm breakage |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-02-16 16:22:31 | Re: OpenVMS? |