Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

> On 3 Jul 2023, at 18:34, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 8 Jun 2023, at 19:49, Ibrar Ahmed wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:56 PM Gregory Stark (as CFM) > > wrote: > >> This patch was marked Returned with Feedback and then later Waiting on >> Author. And it

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

> On 8 Jun 2023, at 19:49, Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:56 PM Gregory Stark (as CFM) > wrote: > This patch was marked Returned with Feedback and then later Waiting on > Author. And it hasn't had any updates since January. What is the state > on this

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:56 PM Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 10:05, Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > > > Thanks, I have modified everything as suggested, except one point > > > > > Don't use variable format strings. They're hard to read and they > > > probably defeat compile-time

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 10:05, Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > Thanks, I have modified everything as suggested, except one point > > > Don't use variable format strings. They're hard to read and they > > probably defeat compile-time checks that the arguments match the > > format string. You could use a "*"

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 10:12 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 6:47 AM Amit Kapila > wr= > ote: > >> I feel the discussion has slightly deviated which makes it unclear > >> whether this patch is required or not? > > > My opinion is that showing some

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On 22/7/2022 16:47, Amit Kapila wrote: I feel the discussion has slightly deviated which makes it unclear whether this patch is required or not? After quick review I want to express my thoughts. At first, We have been waiting for this feature for years. Often clients give an explain to us

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 6:47 AM Amit Kapila wr= ote: >> I feel the discussion has slightly deviated which makes it unclear >> whether this patch is required or not? > My opinion is that showing some fractional digits at least when > loops>1 would be better than what we

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested The previous review was incorrectly posted. Updating the pat.ch

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested LGTM

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested Verified patch 'explain_float_row_v3.patch' on master &

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 6:47 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > I feel the discussion has slightly deviated which makes it unclear > whether this patch is required or not? My opinion is that showing some fractional digits at least when loops>1 would be better than what we have now. It might not be the best

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 3:50 AM Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:21:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I mean, what I really want here if I'm honest is to not have the > > system divide the number of rows by the loop count. And it sort of > > sounds like maybe that's what you

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:53 PM Greg Stark wrote: > > - -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 > loops=50) > > + -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960.00 > > At the not inconsiderable risk of bike-shedding > > I'm wondering if printing

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:14 PM vignesh C wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:25 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:04 AM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:11 PM Ibrar Ahmed > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 2:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:25 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:04 AM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> - WRITE_FLOAT_FIELD(rows, "%.0f"); > >> + WRITE_FLOAT_FIELD(rows, "%.2f"); > >> > >>

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 04:21:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I mean, what I really want here if I'm honest is to not have the > system divide the number of rows by the loop count. And it sort of > sounds like maybe that's what you want, too. You want to know whether > the loop count is actually

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:21 PM Robert Haas wrote: > Nested Loop (actual time=TIME FOR THIS AND ALL CHILDREN rows=THE REAL > ROW COUNT loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on something (actual time=THE TIME IT REALLY TOOK rows=THE > REAL ROW COUNT loops=1) > -> Index Scan using someidx on somethingelse (actual

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:53 PM Greg Stark wrote: > > - -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50) > > + -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960.00 > > At the not inconsiderable risk of bike-shedding > > I'm wondering if printing something

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

> - -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50) > + -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960.00 At the not inconsiderable risk of bike-shedding I'm wondering if printing something like 0.00 will be somewhat deceptive when the real value is

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:25 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:04 AM David G. Johnston > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:11 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: > On Jun 2, 2009, at

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 2:25 AM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:04 AM David G. Johnston > wrote: >> >> - WRITE_FLOAT_FIELD(rows, "%.0f"); >> + WRITE_FLOAT_FIELD(rows, "%.2f"); >> >> This one looks suspicious, though I haven't dug into the code to see exactly >> what all is

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:04 AM David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:11 PM Ibrar Ahmed > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Robert Haas writes: >>> > On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> >> You're

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:11 PM Ibrar Ahmed wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas writes: >> > On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> You're right that the number of significant digits already exceeds the >> >> true accuracy of the

Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> You're right that the number of significant digits already exceeds the > >> true accuracy of the computation. I think what Robert wants to see is > >> the exact value