From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, falcon <falcon(at)intercable(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PseudoPartitioning and agregates |
Date: | 2005-05-25 15:21:03 |
Message-ID: | 87fywb8h7k.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>
> > How hard would it be to have Postgres actually remove the gettimeofday
> > overhead from the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output?
>
> Personally, I dislike measurement tools that lie to you under the flag
> of producing more-easily-interpreted results.
This is pretty standard practice for profilers in other contexts.
> As an example of why this would be a bad idea, the total time would no
> longer be closely related to the actual elapsed time (as measured by
> psql's \timing for instance) so you would be entirely unable to tell
> whether there was some significant factor not being measured.
Well that would be easily remedied by printing the total overhead subtracted
from all the nodes after the plan.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-25 15:23:14 | Re: WAL replay failure after file truncation(?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-25 15:02:11 | WAL replay failure after file truncation(?) |