| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planning time in explain/explain analyze |
| Date: | 2014-01-13 20:22:32 |
| Message-ID: | 52D44B08.7060809@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/13/2014 09:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> My thought, at least, was to always grab the planning time and then
> provide it for explain and/or explain analyze, and then for re-plan
> cases, indicate if a cached plan was returned, if a replan happened, and
> if a replan happened, what the old plan time and the new plan time was.
I like this solution due it is correctness and that all information is
included. But I also think my original path was fine in how it in its
simplicity solved the problem without adding any overhead in the
non-EXPLAIN case. Either solution would be fine by me. If the consensus
is that we want to always measure it I will look at implementing that
instead.
--
Andreas Karlsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-13 20:23:04 | Re: Planning time in explain/explain analyze |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-01-13 20:19:22 | Re: Linux kernel impact on PostgreSQL performance |