Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch
Date: 2010-02-09 20:26:29
Message-ID: 4B71C4F5.2000506@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/9/10 11:50 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Secondly, I think it's printing the total buffer usage for that node
> across the whole query -- not the average per iteration. I agree that
> the average is probably more confusing but it's what we do for every
> other stat. Do we want to be consistent? Call out the inconsistency
> somehow, perhaps by tagging it "Total Buffer Usage:" or something like
> that?

I'd prefer to have the average; it's very confusing to have an explain
row which has the cost per iteration, but the buffer usage per node.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etienne Dube 2010-02-09 21:09:16 Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-09 20:20:40 Re: CreateFakeRelcacheEntry versus Hot Standby