On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira >>>> Don't you think is too strange having, for example, 6.67 rows? >>> >>> No stranger than having it say 7 when it's really not. Actually mine >>> mostly come out 1 when the real value is somewhere between 0.5 and >>> 1.49. :-( > >> +1. It would help users realize more quickly that some of the values in the >> EXPLAIN output are, for instance, *average* number of rows *per iteration* >> of a >> nested loop, say, rather than total rows found in all loops. > > I think it would only be sensible to show fractional digits if nloops is > greater than 1. Otherwise the value must in fact be an integer, and > you're just going to confuse people more by suggesting that it might not > be.
That might be over-engineering, but I'll take it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
