On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:55:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Hitoshi Harada <umi.tan...@gmail.com> writes: > > 2011/1/21 Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org>: > >> "Rows Skipped: nnn", maybe? > > > +1. Very straightforward to me. > > I didn't really care for that one, because I think it *won't* be > straightforward when there's more than one filter condition at a node. > Imagine > > Bitmap Heap Scan ... > Recheck Cond: blah blah > Rows Skipped: 42 > Filter Cond: blah blah blah > Rows Skipped: 77 > > To me, "rows skipped" sounds like a statement about the overall behavior > of the plan node, and thus the above looks contradictory. Another point > is that even if you're okay with the above for textual output, we do not > have a choice about choosing distinct field names for the two counts for > XML/JSON output. > > Reflecting on that, I'm inclined to suggest > > Bitmap Heap Scan ... > Recheck Cond: blah blah > Rows Removed by Recheck: 42 > Filter Cond: blah blah blah > Rows Removed by Filter: 77 > > or even more verbosely > > Bitmap Heap Scan ... > Recheck Cond: blah blah > Rows Removed by Recheck Cond: 42 > Filter Cond: blah blah blah > Rows Removed by Filter Cond: 77 > > ie repeat the label of the filtering condition exactly. This is looking > pretty long, but from the viewpoint of vertical or horizontal space > occupied by the printout, I doubt it matters.
+1 for this. It says what happened. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
