On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>>>> Don't you think is too strange having, for example, 6.67 rows?
>>>
>>> No stranger than having it say 7 when it's really not. Actually mine
>>> mostly come out 1 when the real value is somewhere between 0.5 and
>>> 1.49. :-(
>
>> +1. It would help users realize more quickly that some of the values in the
>> EXPLAIN output are, for instance, *average* number of rows *per iteration* of a
>> nested loop, say, rather than total rows found in all loops.
>
> I think it would only be sensible to show fractional digits if nloops is
> greater than 1. Otherwise the value must in fact be an integer, and
> you're just going to confuse people more by suggesting that it might not
> be.
That might be over-engineering, but I'll take it.
...Robert
