On 04/17/2014 01:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'll go change it.
Thanks for fixing this. The new name "Execution time" is much clearer.
--
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref
I found a bit confusing, when planning time is greater total time, so
+1 for execution time.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Where are we on this? I still see:
>
>> test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1;
>>Q
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Where are we on this? I still see:
> test=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 1;
>QUERY PLAN
>
>
>Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 wid
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 07:13:46PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > The problem I'm having with the way it stands now is that one would
> > reasonably expect that "Total time" is the total of all times counted
> > by EXPLAIN, including main plan execution tim
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> The problem I'm having with the way it stands now is that one would
> reasonably expect that "Total time" is the total of all times counted
> by EXPLAIN, including main plan execution time, trigger firing time,
> and now planning time. Since it is not, any
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not really feeling a compelling need to change that. We've been
>> displaying total runtime - described exactly that way - for many
>> releases and it's surely is confusing to the novice that the time
>> reported
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not really feeling a compelling need to change that. We've been
> displaying total runtime - described exactly that way - for many
> releases and it's surely is confusing to the novice that the time
> reported can be much less than the time
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
>
>> Isn't it perhaps a little confusing that "Planning time" may well
>> exceed "Total runtime"?
>
> Perhaps s/T
Gavin Flower writes:
> Can I assume:
> 'Total runtime' is 'elapsed time'
> and
> 'Execution time' is 'processor time'.
No. It's going to be elapsed time, either way.
> In a parallel implementation, one would likely want both.
When and if we have that, we can argue about what to measure.
On 03/02/14 09:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ?
+1
If the planning was ever made into a parallel process, then 'elapsed
time' would be less than the 'processor time'. So what does 'Execution
time' mean?
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ?
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Include planning time in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
> Isn't it perhaps a little confusing that "Planning time" may well
> exceed "Total runtime"?
Perhaps s/Total runtime/Execution time/ ?
rega
12 matches
Mail list logo
