Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070912132011w590b6d03q7692ec1e02196631@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: EXPLAIN BUFFERS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> Should I add countBufferUsage boolean arguments to all places >> doInstrument booleans are currently used? This requires several >> minor modifications of codes in many places. > > Pushing extra arguments around would create overhead of its own ... > overhead that would be paid even when not using EXPLAIN at all. Well, I think we need to do something. I don't really want to tack another 5-6% overhead onto EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Maybe we could recast the doInstrument argument as a set of OR'd flags? ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: