Le 17/10/2020 à 06:26, Julien Rouhaud a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:15 PM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> so 17. 10. 2020 v 0:11 odesílatel Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>>>
>>> On 16.10.2020 12:07, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>>
>>> Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 16:12, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pá 16. 10. 2020 v 9:43 odesílatel <e.sokolova@postgrespro.ru> napsal:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, hackers.
>>>>> For some distributions of data in tables, different loops in nested loop
>>>>> joins can take different time and process different amounts of entries.
>>>>> It makes average statistics returned by explain analyze not very useful
>>>>> for DBA.
>>>>> To fix it, here is the patch that add printing of min and max statistics
>>>>> for time and rows across all loops in Nested Loop to EXPLAIN ANALYSE.
>>>>> Please don't hesitate to share any thoughts on this topic!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> This is great feature - sometimes it can be pretty messy current limited format
>>>
>>>
>>> +1, this can be very handy!
>>>
>>> Cool.
>>> I have added your patch to the commitfest, so it won't get lost.
>
> Thanks! I'll also try to review it next week.
>
>>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2765/
>>>
>>> I will review the code next week. Unfortunately, I cannot give any feedback about usability of this feature.
>>>
>>> User visible change is:
>>>
>>> - -> Nested Loop (actual rows=N loops=N)
>>> + -> Nested Loop (actual min_rows=0 rows=0 max_rows=0 loops=2)
>>
>>
>> This interface is ok - there is not too much space for creativity.
>
> Yes I also think it's ok. We should also consider usability for tools
> like explain.depesz.com, I don't know if the current output is best.
> I'm adding Depesz and Pierre which are both working on this kind of
> tool for additional input.
Same for me and PEV2. It should be fairly easy to parse this new format.
>
>> I can imagine displaying variance or average - but I am afraid about very bad performance impacts.
>
> The original counter (rows here) is already an average right?
> Variance could be nice too. Instrumentation will already spam
> gettimeofday() calls for nested loops, I don't think that computing
> variance would add that much overhead?
Thus, it's an average value. And to be mentioned: a rounded one! Which I
found a bit tricky to figure out.