Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2022-07-22T10:47:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 3:50 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:21:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I mean, what I really want here if I'm honest is to not have the > > system divide the number of rows by the loop count. And it sort of > > sounds like maybe that's what you want, too. You want to know whether > > the loop count is actually zero, not whether it's close to zero when > > you divide it by some number that might be gigantic. > ... > > involves a dozen or two different nested loops, and if we didn't > > insist on dividing the time by the loop count, it would be MUCH EASIER > > to figure out whether the time spent in the Index Scan is a > > significant percentage of the total time or not. > > I think the guiding princible for what to do should be to reduce how much is > needed to explain about how to interpret what explain is showing... > > The docs say this: > | In such cases, the loops value reports the total number of executions of the > | node, and the actual time and rows values shown are averages per-execution. > | This is done to make the numbers comparable with the way that the cost > | estimates are shown. Multiply by the loops value to get the total time > | actually spent in the node. > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 01:45:19PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > Plus you could probably > > make some kind of concession in the direction of maintaining > > compatibility with the current approach if you had to. Right? > > The minimum would be to show the information in a way that makes it clear that > it's "new style" output showing a total and not an average, so that a person > who sees it knows how to interpret it (same for the web "explain tools") > > A concession would be to show the current information *plus* total/raw values. > > This thread is about how to display the existing values. > I feel the discussion has slightly deviated which makes it unclear whether this patch is required or not? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Commits
-
EXPLAIN: Always use two fractional digits for row counts.
- 95dbd827f2ed 18.0 landed
-
Adjust EXPLAIN test case to filter out "Actual Rows" values.
- 44cbba9a7f51 18.0 cited
-
Allow EXPLAIN to indicate fractional rows.
- ddb17e387aa2 18.0 landed
-
Fix pgbench performance issue induced by commit af35fe501.
- fb056564ec5b 18.0 cited