* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Changing it in a new major release seems entirely reasonable.
>
> It's still a crock though. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to
> change the nodeBitmap code so that when EXPLAIN ANALYZE is active,
> it expends extra effort to try to produce a rowcount number.
I'm certainly all for doing something better, just didn't think that we
should be worried about making a change to the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output in
a major release because Depesz might have to update the explain site.
> We could certainly run through the result bitmap and count the number
> of exact-TID bits. I don't see a practical way of doing something
> with lossy page bits, but maybe those occur infrequently enough
> that we could ignore them? Or we could arbitrarily decide that
> a lossy page should be counted as MaxHeapTuplesPerPage, or a bit
> less arbitrarily, count it as the relation's average number
> of tuples per page.
Counting each page as the relation's average number of tuples per page
seems entirely reasonable to me, for what that is trying to report.
That said, I'm a big fan of how we have more detail for things like a
HashJoin (buckets, batches, memory usage) and it might be nice to have
more information like that for a BitmapAnd (and friends). In
particular, I'm thinking of memory usage, exact vs. lossy pages, etc.
Knowing that the bitmap has gotten to the point of being lossy might
indicate that a user could up work_mem, for example, and possibly avoid
recheck costs.
Thanks!
Stephen
