I'm not averse to it. I think it's a good option and I support trace_sort (it really is more of a trace).On 10/3/05, Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements aimed at understanding external sort
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
What do people think about putting something like this into 8.1?
Strictly speaking it's a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: 03 October 2005 15:37
To: Simon Riggs
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] External Sort timing debug
statements
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing
statements aimed at understanding external sort performance. There
is no attempt to alter the algorithms.
What do people think about
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
What do people think about
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 19:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
Minor update of patch, use this version please.
Best Regards, Simon
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
Each major point in the algorithms is marked as shown in this example:
postgres=# set debug_sort=true;
SET
postgres=# explain
