From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "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: | 2007-06-18 18:15:26 |
Message-ID: | 4676CBBE.3070803@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
If we are looking into such a format we could even think a bit about
including basic plan-influencing information like work_mem, enable_*
settings, effective_cache_size,.. there too ...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-18 18:32:07 | Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-06-18 18:06:30 | Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent |