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
