Horton

Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-12-14T04:11:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>> Should I add countBufferUsage boolean arguments to all places
>> doInstrument booleans are currently used? This requires several
>> minor modifications of codes in many places.
>
> Pushing extra arguments around would create overhead of its own ...
> overhead that would be paid even when not using EXPLAIN at all.

Well, I think we need to do something.  I don't really want to tack
another 5-6% overhead onto EXPLAIN ANALYZE.  Maybe we could recast the
doInstrument argument as a set of OR'd flags?

...Robert