Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Subject: Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
Date: 2014-10-16 13:53:24
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYxaYoqeLXW=-eLhmabx7+jM0_AX9bynOZ+i5wLtuXbUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > Well. Unless I miss something it doesn't resolve the problem that
>> > started this thread. Namely that it's currently impossible to write
>> > regression using EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF. COSTS OFF). Which is
>> > worthwhile because it allows to tests some behaviour that's only visible
>> > in actually executed plans (like seing that a subtree wasn't executed).
>>
>> TBH, I don't particularly care about that. A new flag for turning
>> "summary timing" off would answer the complaint with not too much
>> non-orthogonality ... but I really don't find this use case compelling
>> enough to justify adding a feature to EXPLAIN.
>>
> Hmm, was my case above not compelling enough?

Apparently not to Tom, but it made sense to me. I think we should
find a way to do something about this - maybe making TIMING OFF also
suppress that info is the simplest approach.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-10-16 13:56:45 Re: Performance regression: 9.2+ vs. ScalarArrayOpExpr vs. ORDER BY
Previous Message Nick Barnes 2014-10-16 13:51:29 Question about RI checks