Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1149713090.2680.45.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: That EXPLAIN ANALYZE patch still needs work
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 15:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Ah-hah, I've sussed it. > so I'm > afraid this approach to sampling EXPLAIN ANALYZE is a failure. Hmmm, I thought we already got that bit...sorry to sound negative. > I propose we revert this patch and think about an interrupt-driven > sampling method instead. I don't have much more faith in crazy scheme No.2 either. (Mine or yours...) Can we just have an option to avoid the timing altogether, please? I don't want to have long discussions about instrumentation, I just want a reasonably useful EXPLAIN ANALYZE in a reasonable amount of time - one that we never, ever have to doubt whether the sampling works correctly on a Miasmic-367 with HyperKooling. You could lose a month on -perform going into the details of this for everybody - this was supposed to be a simple additional feature. If you're set on the sampling, great, but can we have the option to avoid it completely also? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: