On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> The observed timings are
> query only 100.5ms
> explain (analyze) 1234.9ms
> explain (analyze,resource) 2210.2ms
It's very large overheads, but I think it is still useful
if there are no overhead if we disable the reso
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
> * There are some overlaps between the feature and DTrace hooks.
> If we need such extension even though we have DTrace hooks,
> it might mean DTrace hooks are hard to use for average users
> and maybe also for postgres' hackers...
I
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
wrote:
> How much overhead do you have with "resource" option?
> getrusage() calls for each tuple might have considerable overheads.
> How much difference between (analyze) and (analyze, resource) options?
Here's strace -c for a select count(*) fr
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Attached is a patch to display getrusage output to EXPLAIN output.
> This is the patch I mentioned previously in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00684.php and
> it raises the same issues we were talking about then.
How
Attached is a patch to display getrusage output to EXPLAIN output.
This is the patch I mentioned previously in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00684.php and
it raises the same issues we were talking about then. Should the
resource usage stats displayed be per-iteration total
