Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A16AD25.4090406@anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFD: Discarded tuple count for SeqScan nodes in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 05/22/2009 03:42 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: >> When analyzing the plan of a query I often find myself questioning >> whether an additional index may be sensible, or if it is sensible that >> a SeqScan is used if an index is available. >> >> The current EXPLAIN ANALYZE only shows the number of tuples matching >> the qualifier of an SeqScan Node - for analyzing the above situation >> it is at least equally interesting how many tuples were read and >> discarded. >> Good idea - Bad idea? > Isn't the discarded count always equal to (# of rows in table - matched > tuples)? Seems pretty redundant to me. Not for EXISTS(), LIMIT and similar. Also when looking at more complex plans its quite a nuisance to go through all participating tables and do a separate count(*). Especially its not your plan but some clients plan etc. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: