From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Date: | 2009-05-22 13:48:21 |
Message-ID: | 4A16AD25.4090406@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 05/22/2009 03:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> When analyzing the plan of a query I often find myself questioning
>> whether an additional index may be sensible, or if it is sensible that
>> a SeqScan is used if an index is available.
>>
>> The current EXPLAIN ANALYZE only shows the number of tuples matching
>> the qualifier of an SeqScan Node - for analyzing the above situation
>> it is at least equally interesting how many tuples were read and
>> discarded.
>> Good idea - Bad idea?
> Isn't the discarded count always equal to (# of rows in table - matched
> tuples)? Seems pretty redundant to me.
Not for EXISTS(), LIMIT and similar.
Also when looking at more complex plans its quite a nuisance to go
through all participating tables and do a separate count(*). Especially
its not your plan but some clients plan etc.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-05-22 14:40:32 | Re: [PATCH] 8.5 plpgsql change for named notation: treat word following AS keyword as label v2 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-05-22 13:42:28 | Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |