On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:37:04PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Note that the resulting times still include the overhead actually
> incurred, I didn't filter it out. I want the times to remain reflecting
> reality as closely as possible.
If we actually know the overhead I think it'd be
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:00:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 10:55 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
> > Can you explain why? Unknown options don't do anything, so having users
> > remove them seems like a good move.
>
> Build system frameworks assume that they can pa
Martijn,
On 5/11/06 12:17 AM, "Martijn van Oosterhout" wrote:
> Did you test it? There are some cases where this might still leave some
> noticable overhead (high loop count). I'm just not sure if they occur
> all that often in practice...
I've sent it to our team for testing, let's see if we g
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:16:43PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Nice one Martijn - we have immediate need for this, as one of our sizeable
> queries under experimentation took 3 hours without EXPLAIN ANALYZE, then
> over 20 hours with it...
Did you test it? There are some cases where this might s
