Re: proposal: EXPLAIN ANALYZE formatting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: EXPLAIN ANALYZE formatting
Date: 2017-01-28 16:09:36
Message-ID: 6096.1485619776@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Now EXPLAIN ANALYZE produce too wide rows for usage in presentations

> What do you think about possibility to implement >>optional<< alternative
> formatting.
> Now:
> node name (estimation) (actual)
> Alternative:
> node name (estimation)
> (actual)

Seems like that would make a difference in only a tiny minority of
situations. In a deeply nested plan you'll have trouble no matter
what, and it's not uncommon that the node name line isn't the widest
thing anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-28 16:23:04 Re: Removing link-time cross-module refs in contrib
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2017-01-28 16:02:32 Re: proposal: EXPLAIN ANALYZE formatting