Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "'Martijn van Oosterhout'" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
Date: 2006-06-09 18:42:29
Message-ID: 20445.1149878549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Are we still going to subtract out the gettimeofday overhead?

> I was always more excited about that than the sampling aspect. I've run into
> queries where EXPLAIN ANALYZE results were deceptive due to the gettimeofday
> overhead but I've never run into a query where gettimeofday overhead made
> running the query under EXPLAIN ANALYZE impractical.

That would be deceptive in a different way, ie, make it look like there
was a whole bunch of outside-the-plan overhead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2006-06-09 18:50:41 Re: ADD/DROP constraints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-09 18:41:03 Re: ADD/DROP constraints