From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN WITH |
Date: | 2009-04-05 16:05:28 |
Message-ID: | 4984.1238947528@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
>> Would be nice if there was a CTE ID or similar to link between
>> the pieces of the InitPlan and the CTE nodes.
> Erm, of course, the CTE *has* an ID already, since you name them. Could
> we get that ID/name up into the piece of the InitPlan that is handling
> that CTE?
I'm not sure but will be glad to take a look. Assuming it's not
unreasonably difficult, does anyone object to a format like this:
Nested Loop (cost=1266.59..1001458.19 rows=35936310 width=52)
InitPlan
CTE abc
-> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..34.25 rows=647 width=12)
Filter: (id < 200)
CTE wumpus
-> Seq Scan on tab1 (cost=0.00..27.70 rows=1770 width=16)
-> CTE Scan on abc x (cost=0.00..35.40 rows=1770 width=16)
-> Materialize (cost=1204.64..1566.67 rows=20303 width=36)
-> Hash Join (cost=42.05..1025.34 rows=20303 width=36)
...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-05 16:21:41 | Re: Closing some 8.4 open items |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-05 15:54:03 | Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python |