Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS
Date: 2009-12-08 03:05:27
Message-ID: 603c8f070912071905g1a69437ch6e85282d6016ed11@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Here is an updated patch per discussion.
>
>  * Counters are accumulative. They contain I/Os by child nodes.
>  * Text format shows all counters.
>  * Add "shared_" prefix to variables representing shared buffers/blocks.
>
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Itagaki Takahiro escreveu:
>> > I think the current output is enough and useful in normal use.
>> > We can use XML or JSON format for more details.
>> >
>> I don't think it is a good idea to have different information in different
>> formats. I'm with Robert; *don't* do that.
>
> I'm afraid of the human-unreadability of the text format, that is discussed
> in the YAML format thread. ...but I found we say the following in the docs.
>
>  XML or JSON output contains the same information as the text output format
>  http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/sql-explain.html
>
> Obviously I should not hide any information only in the text format.
> The new output will be: (in one line)
>  Shared Blocks: (hit=2 read=1641 written=0) Local Blocks: (hit=0 read=0 written=0) Temp Blocks: (read=1443 written=1443)

Hmm, that's a little awkward. I think we could drop some of the punctuation.

Shared Blocks: hit 2 read 1641 wrote 0, Local Blocks: hit 0 read 0
wrote 0, Temp Blocks: read 1443 wrote 1443

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-12-08 03:06:22 Re: YAML
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-12-08 03:01:13 Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion