| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Showing primitive index scan count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (for skip scan and SAOP scans) |
| Date: | 2024-08-28 13:49:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZh3Vwo54X4fk9tDGGb0G7ZLh63yBfARu-mHWAVZwqe4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:41 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:35 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > If you think it's important to have this info on all indexes then I'd
> > > prefer the pgstat approach over adding a field in IndexScanDescData.
> > > If instead you think that this is primarily important to expose for
> > > nbtree index scans, then I'd prefer putting it in the BTSO using e.g.
> > > the index AM analyze hook approach, as I think that's much more
> > > elegant than this.
> >
> > I agree with this analysis. I don't see why IndexScanDesc would ever
> > be the right place for this.
>
> Then what do you think is the right place?
The paragraph that I agreed with and quoted in my reply, and that you
then quoted in your reply to me, appears to me to address that exact
question.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-08-28 13:52:38 | Re: Showing primitive index scan count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (for skip scan and SAOP scans) |
| Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2024-08-28 13:46:05 | Re: allowing extensions to control planner behavior |