Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> On 1/24/2011 7:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given where we've ended up on what we want printed, I'm forced to
>> conclude that there is basically nothing usable in the submitted patch.
> I personally feel that if we could even add this for explicit Filter
> conditions, peop
On 1/24/2011 7:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Given where we've ended up on what we want printed, I'm forced to
conclude that there is basically nothing usable in the submitted patch.
I personally feel that if we could even add this for explicit Filter
conditions, people would be a lot happier. While
Florian Pflug writes:
> On Jan22, 2011, at 17:55 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> Reflecting on that, I'm inclined to suggest
>> Bitmap Heap Scan ...
>> Recheck Cond: blah blah
>> Rows Removed by Recheck Cond: 42
>> Filter Cond: blah blah blah
>> Rows R
On Jan22, 2011, at 17:55 , Tom Lane wrote:
> Reflecting on that, I'm inclined to suggest
>
> Bitmap Heap Scan ...
> Recheck Cond: blah blah
> Rows Removed by Recheck: 42
> Filter Cond: blah blah blah
> Rows Removed by Filter: 77
>
> or
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:55:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hitoshi Harada writes:
> > 2011/1/21 Florian Pflug :
> >> "Rows Skipped: nnn", maybe?
>
> > +1. Very straightforward to me.
>
> I didn't really care for that one, because I think it *won't* be
> straightforward when there's more than on
Hitoshi Harada writes:
> 2011/1/21 Florian Pflug :
>> "Rows Skipped: nnn", maybe?
> +1. Very straightforward to me.
I didn't really care for that one, because I think it *won't* be
straightforward when there's more than one filter condition at a node.
Imagine
Bitmap Heap Scan ...
2011/1/21 Florian Pflug :
> On Jan21, 2011, at 03:29 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out
of it?
>>
>>> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
>>> leave me with
On Jan21, 2011, at 03:29 , Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out
>>> of it?
>
>> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
>> leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered"
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Mark Kirkwood
wrote:
> On 21/01/11 15:24, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
>>> leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered" in this cas
On 21/01/11 15:24, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered" in this case is what
was passed through, not what was removed.
Hmm, I guess I see you
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out
>> of it?
> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
> leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered" in this case is what
> was passed through, not wha
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Right -- God only knows the number of things were filtered out to
> leave me with filtered water. What's "filtered" in this case is what
> was passed through, not what was removed.
Hmm, I guess I see your point now. Well, I'm not wedded t
> Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it...
>>
>> I find it ambiguous. [Takes sip of filtered water.]
>
> Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out
> of it?
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, is it just me, or is the terminology "number filtered" pretty
>>> confusing/ambiguous in itself? It doesn't seem at all clear to me
>>> whether that's the number o
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it...
>
> I find it ambiguous. [Takes sip of filtered water.]
Oh, you mean water that had some things you didn't want taken out of it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http:/
On 1/20/2011 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So the line I'm thinking we should pursue is to visually associate the
new counter with the filter condition, either like
Filter Cond: (x> 42) (nfiltered = 123)
or
Filter Cond: (x> 42)
Rows Filtered: 123
I'd prefer the latter.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, is it just me, or is the terminology "number filtered" pretty
>> confusing/ambiguous in itself? It doesn't seem at all clear to me
>> whether that's the number of rows passed by the filter condition or
>> the number o
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it...
I find it ambiguous. [Takes sip of filtered water.] How about
excluded?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpr
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The main functional problem I see with this format is that it assumes
> there is one and only one filter step associated with every plan node.
> That is just plain wrong. Many don't have any, and there are important
> cases where there are two.
hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:48:59PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> He also mentioned that he didn't feel it was terribly complicated or
>> that it'd be difficult to update for this. Looking over the code, it's
>> got a simple regex for matching that line which w
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:48:59PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > How much has that code been updated from one release to the next?
>
> Just an FYI, I talked to depesz on IRC (please chime in if you disagree
> with any of this) and he indicated that
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > I agree; we make bigger changes than this all the time.
>>
>> No, we don't.
>
> Alright, do we want to go down the road of adding new things to the
> XML/JSON/YAML/Whatever-e
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> How much has that code been updated from one release to the next?
Just an FYI, I talked to depesz on IRC (please chime in if you disagree
with any of this) and he indicated that he's had to update the code
from time to time, mostly because the parser
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > I agree; we make bigger changes than this all the time.
>
> No, we don't.
Alright, do we want to go down the road of adding new things to the
XML/JSON/YAML/Whatever-else format that isn't displayed in the TEXT
version, to avoid thi
On Jan 20, 2011 6:43 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Stephen Frost
wrote:
> >> While I agree completely about the general "if you're going to break,
> >> break it big" approach, but I don't particularly care for holding
output
> >> strings from
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2011 6:43 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>>
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Stephen Frost
>> > wrote:
>> >> While I agree completely about the general "if you're going to break,
>> >> break it big" appr
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> While I agree completely about the general "if you're going to break,
>> break it big" approach, but I don't particularly care for holding output
>> strings from EXPLAIN to the same level that we do the wireline proto
On 2011-01-20 7:07 PM +0200, Robert Haas wrote:
Looking at the patch, I have to say I had hoped this was going to show
nfiltered in both the estimated and actual cases, which it doesn't.
Now maybe that's more work than we want to put in, but it would be
nice to have.
That would be fantastical,
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> The main problem I've got with this patch is that there's no place to
>> shoehorn the information into the textual EXPLAIN format without
>> breaking a lot of expectations (and hence code --- it's in
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> The main problem I've got with this patch is that there's no place to
> shoehorn the information into the textual EXPLAIN format without
> breaking a lot of expectations (and hence code --- it's insane to
> imagine that any significant amount of client-side
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> This patch looked good, in general, to me. I added a few documentation
>>> updates and a comment, but it's a very straight-forward patch as far as
>>> I can tell
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> This patch looked good, in general, to me. I added a few documentation
>> updates and a comment, but it's a very straight-forward patch as far as
>> I can tell. Passes all regressions and my additional testing.
> I
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:16, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This patch looked good, in general, to me. I added a few documentation
> updates and a comment, but it's a very straight-forward patch as far as
> I can tell. Passes all regressions and my additional testing.
Looks good and useful for me, to
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> This patch looked good, in general, to me. I added a few documentation
> updates and a comment, but it's a very straight-forward patch as far as
> I can tell. Passes all regressions and my additional testing.
I have not looked at the code
Greetings,
On 2010-01-15 11:37 PM +200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2010-11-18 5:45 PM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > Here's a patch for showing in EXPLAIN ANALYZE the number of rows a plan
> > qual filtered from a node's input.
>
> Rebased against master.
This patch looked good, in general, to
35 matches
Mail list logo
