On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:27 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com <imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually I also don't have strong opinion but I thought someone would complain about renaming of those columns and
> also some tools like monitoring which use those columns will not work. If we use {total, min, max, mean,
stddev}_time,
> someone might mistakenly understand {total, min, max, mean, stddev}_time mean {total, min, max, mean, stddev} of
planning
> and execution.
> > If I need to choose {total, min, max, mean, stddev}_time or {total, min, max, mean, stddev}_exec_time, I choose
former
> one because choosing best name is not worth destructing the existing scripts or tools.
>
> We could definitely keep (plan|exec)_time for the SRF, and have the {total, min, max, mean, stddev}_time created by
> the view to be a sum of planning + execution for each counter
I might misunderstand but if we define {total, min, max, mean, stddev}_time is
just a sum of planning + execution for each counter like
"select total_plan_time + total_exec_time as total_time from pg_stat_statements",
I wonder we can calculate stddev_time correctly. If we prepare variables in
the codes to calculate those values, yes, we can correctly calculate those
values even for the total_stddev.
> and it doesn't sound like a bad idea if having even
> more columns in the view is not an issue.
I also wondered having many columns in the view is ok, but if it's ok, I agree
all of those columns are in the view. Only problem I can come up with is the
view will look bad with many columns, but it already looks bad because query
column values tend to be long and each row can't fit in the one row in the
console.
--
Yoshikazu Imai
