On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:40:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
... Perhaps a path-specific struct, referenced
from the path and built only with verbose explain would be fine?
How would that work, given that the planner doesn't know whether its
output is going to get explained?
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:27:01PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:14, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 11:34:12AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Justin Pryzby writes:
>> Jeff said:
>>> |What would I find very useful is a verbosity option to get the cost
>>> |estimates e
Tomas Vondra writes:
> ... Perhaps a path-specific struct, referenced
> from the path and built only with verbose explain would be fine?
How would that work, given that the planner doesn't know whether its
output is going to get explained? With features like the plan cache
and auto_explain in mi
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:14, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 11:34:12AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >Justin Pryzby writes:
> >> Jeff said:
> >>> |What would I find very useful is a verbosity option to get the cost
> >>> |estimates expressed as a multiplier of each *_cost parameter, r
On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 11:34:12AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Justin Pryzby writes:
Jeff said:
|What would I find very useful is a verbosity option to get the cost
|estimates expressed as a multiplier of each *_cost parameter, rather than
|just as a scalar.
It seems to me that's "just" a matter
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> If we did go that route, I think a disable count would be the right thing.
> It wouldn't take up any more space than a bool, probably, once you account
> for padding overhead. And the code impact in hotspots like add_path would
> be just about the
Jim Finnerty writes:
> +1, adding that sort of structure to Cost would get rejected out of hand.
> however, having a 'disabled' bit be part of the cost structure is something
> that I would support. This has been discussed previously, but even adding
> one bit to Cost doesn't have everyone's supp
Justin Pryzby writes:
> Jeff said:
>> |What would I find very useful is a verbosity option to get the cost
>> |estimates expressed as a multiplier of each *_cost parameter, rather than
>> |just as a scalar.
> It seems to me that's "just" a matter of redefining Cost and fixing
> everything that b
Jeff said:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMkU%3D1zBJNVo2DGYBgLJqpu8fyjCE_ys%2Bmsr6pOEoiwA7y5jrA%40mail.gmail.com
|What would I find very useful is a verbosity option to get the cost
|estimates expressed as a multiplier of each *_cost parameter, rather than
|just as a scalar.
I guess the g
