Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Date: 2024-01-12 17:23:08
Message-ID: ZaF1fB_hMqycSq-S@toroid.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 2024-01-12 17:52:27 +0100, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org wrote:
>
> I think this patch is mostly OK

(After the last few rounds of changes, it looks fine to me too.)

> Planning:
> Buffers: shared hit=120 read=30
> Memory: used=67944 bytes allocated=73728 bytes
> Planning Time: 0.892 ms
>
> […]
>
> Or we could leave it as you have it, but to me that's akin to giving up
> on doing it nicely.

For completeness, there's a third option, which is easier to write and a
bit more friendly to the sort of thing that might already be parsing
"Planning Time", viz.,

Planning Buffers: shared hit=120 read=30
Planning Memory: used=67944 bytes allocated=73728 bytes
Planning Time: 0.892 ms

(Those "bytes" look slightly odd to me in the midst of all the x=y
pieces, but that's probably not worth thinking about.)

-- Abhijit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-01-12 17:23:50 Re: reorganize "Shared Memory and LWLocks" section of docs
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-01-12 17:21:52 Re: introduce dynamic shared memory registry