On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > I see value in making it obvious to users when and how > > pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_scan advances. Being able to easily relate it > > to EXPLAIN ANALYZE output is useful, independent of whether or not > > SAOPs happen to be used. That's probably the single best argument in > > favor of showing "Index Searches: N" unconditionally. But I'm > > certainly not going to refuse to budge over that. > > TBH, I'm afraid that this patch basically is exposing numbers that > nobody but Peter Geoghegan and maybe two or three other hackers > will understand, and even fewer people will find useful (since the > how-many-primitive-scans behavior is not something users have any > control over, IIUC). I doubt that "it lines up with > pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_scan" is enough to justify the additional > clutter in EXPLAIN. Maybe we should be going the other direction > and trying to make pg_stat_all_indexes count in a less detailed but > less surprising way, ie once per indexscan plan node invocation.
I kind of had that reaction too initially, but I think that was mostly because "Primitive Index Scans" seemed extremely unclear. I think "Index Searches" is pretty comprehensible, honestly. Why shouldn't someone be able to figure out what that means? Might make sense to restrict this to VERBOSE mode, too. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
