Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: depesz@depesz.com, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-01-21T02:08:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> BTW, is it just me, or is the terminology "number filtered" pretty >>> confusing/ambiguous in itself? It doesn't seem at all clear to me >>> whether that's the number of rows passed by the filter condition or >>> the number of rows rejected. Perhaps "nremoved" would be clearer. > >> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it... removed sounds like >> you deleted something. > > Well, you did delete something, no? There are rows that aren't in the > output that would have been there if not for the filter condition. What I mean to say is that I fear that removed would give the impression that some modification had been made to the database. Perhaps that's silly, but it's what came to mind. > And, btw, one person thinking it's clear doesn't make it so. That's why I said "I think" rather than "Any fool should be able to see that". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company