On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> ... and not, in particular, parse analysis or rewrite time?
>
>> I think breaking those out would be a good idea. Especially rewrite time.
>
> Rewrite time seems generally negligible in comparison to the other two
> components, at least in the simple testing I did yesterday. It would
> only be significant if you were expanding some complicated views, in
> which case planning time would almost surely dominate anyway.
>
> Anyway, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the idea of silently
> adding parse/rewrite time into the "planning time" line isn't such a good
> one. So there may or may not be sufficient interest in the other numbers
> to justify adding them as separate lines later --- but the key word there
> is "later". I now think we should leave "planning time" as it's currently
> defined, which means we don't need to address this issue for 9.4.
Works for me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company