Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

Hello,

Le jeu. 12 déc. 2024 à 12:57, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>
a écrit :

>
> On 01.08.2023 23:29, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> On 3 Jul 2023, at 18:34, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 Jun 2023, at 19:49, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:56 PM Gregory Stark (as CFM) <
> stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> >>> This patch was marked Returned with Feedback and then later Waiting on
> >>> Author. And it hasn't had any updates since January. What is the state
> >>> on this feedback? If it's already done we can set the patch to Ready
> >>> for Commit and if not do you disagree with the proposed changes?
> >>>
> >>> If there is a consensus to modify the test cases' output, I am willing
> to
> >>> make the necessary changes and adjust the patch accordingly. However,
> >>> if there is a preference to keep the output of certain test cases
> unchanged,
> >>> I can rebase and modify the patch accordingly to accommodate those
> preferences.
> >> As there hasn't been any other comments I suggest updating your patch to
> >> address Tom's comments to see if we can make progress here.
> > Since there hasn't been any updates here, and the thread has been
> stalled, I'm
> > marking this returned with feedback. Please feel free to resubmit a
> version of
> > the patch addressing comments to a future CF.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Gustafsson
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> When the total number of returned tuples is less than the number of
> loops currently shows 'rows = 0'. This can mislead users into thinking
> that no rows were returned at all, even though some might have appeared
> occasionally. For example, if there is 1 tuple over 100 loops, the
> average is 0.01 rows per loop, but as displayed it simply looks like zero.
>
> To clarify this situation, it has been suggested that display rows with
> two decimal places in scenarios where 'loops > 1 && ntuples < loops'. In
> other words, show something like 'rows = 0.01' instead of 'rows=0'. This
> minor change would make it evident that rows did occur, just very
> infrequently.
>
> For all other cases, the current formatting would remain the same. This
> approach aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of query execution
> behavior without introducing unnecessary complexity or false precision.
>
> I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback on this proposal.
>
>
Thanks for your patch, this looks like a very interesting feature that I'd
like to see in a future release.

It did a quick run: patch OK, make OK, make install OK, but make check
fails quite a lot on partition_prune.sql.

I guess it would need some work on partition_prune.sql tests and perhaps
also on the docs.

Thanks again.

--
Guillaume.