| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, 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 13:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZr7gOQ7=6NwxPU9qG2K6N7uij+Oae4_L=evU-awWj3tA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 7:22 PM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Besides, I thought that you wanted me to use some new field in
> > BTScanOpaque? But now you want me to use a global counter. Which is
> > it?
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-08-28 13:41:12 | Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-08-28 13:25:31 | Re: Showing primitive index scan count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (for skip scan and SAOP scans) |