Re: First patch -- somewhat trivial feature - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Berry
Subject Re: First patch -- somewhat trivial feature
Date
Msg-id CAM=RetG0i01RVeJfHL3ko2p-1j8hGtOjtAPgYgGTYgvFRmi3_A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: First patch -- somewhat trivial feature  (David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Snowman --

Thanks for feedback.  I imagined this feature could be useful in a couple of contexts, though mainly in the sense of documenting query optimization efforts.

In one case you may be tweaking cost parameters and having a built in record of the parameters in the explain output can make that more reliable.

In a support context, it can help communicate all the details behind the selection of a query plan, perhaps on IRC support.

David J. --

I originally conceived the notion for the feature while off in the deep end thinking about automatic cost parameter selection.  

It seems plausible that the ideal theoretical costs would be influenced by server activity (io/cpu utilization) and various buffer states at a point in time.  This kind of optimization work is a little beyond my understanding and capability so this was a first step in thinking about this topic.  It turned into a trivial user text output feature, but implementing output formats that are more machine friendly still makes a lot of sense.

Best Regards,
-Robert  



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:16 PM, David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote
> * Robert Berry (

> berrydigital@

> ) wrote:
>> This is my first attempt at writing a patch, so it's pretty simple.
>
> Neat!
>
>>              seq_page: 1.000000, rnd_page: 4.000000, cpu_tup: 0.010000,
>> cpu_ind: 0.005000, cpu_op: 0.002500
>>              amenabled: 11111111111
>>
>>     The bit vector is enable variables in the order listed in cost.h,
>> though mainly provides a high level view on whether or not any strategies
>> are disabled.
>
> While I like the general idea, I have to admit that I don't particularly
> like the format and I'm not sure why it makes sense to have this as part
> of 'explain'?  Why not do a 'show all;' ahead of the explain?

I kinda get the theory behind this but, WRT formatting, explain can output
multiple formats and any patch affecting said output should provide for
changing all of them.  Having each of the sample outputs in the post would
allow for comments from those who would not generally apply such patches.

David J.




--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/First-patch-somewhat-trivial-feature-tp5778245p5778250.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues.
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: nested hstore patch