Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Тема Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?
Дата
Msg-id 4676CBBE.3070803@kaltenbrunner.cc
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: EXPLAIN omits schema?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it
>> into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison
>> between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc.
> 
> Sure you can, just not in SQL ;-)
> 
> Given the amount of trouble we'd have to go to to put the data into a
> pure SQL format, I don't think that's exactly an ideal answer either.
> I'm for making the raw EXPLAIN output be in a simple and robust format,
> which people can then postprocess however they want --- including
> forcing it into SQL if that's what they want.  But just because we're a
> SQL database doesn't mean we should think SQL is the best answer to
> every problem.
> 
> While I'm surely not an XML fanboy, it looks better suited to this
> problem than a pure relational representation would be.

If we are looking into such a format we could even think a bit about
including basic plan-influencing information like work_mem, enable_*
settings, effective_cache_size,.. there too ...

Stefan


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent
Следующее
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC time unit spelling a bit inconsistent