Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimtLut7EXTpzWu2P1rmt2==LD0RG5_Cjqt6PErH@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> BTW, is it just me, or is the terminology "number filtered" pretty >>> confusing/ambiguous in itself? It doesn't seem at all clear to me >>> whether that's the number of rows passed by the filter condition or >>> the number of rows rejected. Perhaps "nremoved" would be clearer. > >> I think filtered is pretty clear and like it... removed sounds like >> you deleted something. > > Well, you did delete something, no? There are rows that aren't in the > output that would have been there if not for the filter condition. What I mean to say is that I fear that removed would give the impression that some modification had been made to the database. Perhaps that's silly, but it's what came to mind. > And, btw, one person thinking it's clear doesn't make it so. That's why I said "I think" rather than "Any fool should be able to see that". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: