On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
