Thread: EXPLAIN omits schema?
I was just looking at implementing some query tuning/debugging features in pgAdmin, and was looking to use EXPLAIN output to get a list of the base tables involved in the users' query. Unfortunately though it doesn't include the schema name in the output which means I have no way of telling for sure which table is being referred to (even in a single query, consider SELECT * FROM s1.foo, s2.foo). Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c indicates that this is intentional: /* We only show the rel name, not schema name */ relname = get_rel_name(rte->relid); Anyone know why? This seems like a bug to me given the ambiguity of possible output. Regards, Dave.
* Dave Page (dpage@postgresql.org) wrote:
> /* We only show the rel name, not schema name */
> relname = get_rel_name(rte->relid);
>
> Anyone know why? This seems like a bug to me given the ambiguity of
> possible output.
I'd assume it's to keep the explain output smaller with the
expectation/assumption that in general you're going to know. A possible
work-around would be to just always provide table aliases for your
queries, as those are shown in the explain.
In terms of behaviour changes, I think it'd be nice to show the schema
name when necessary but otherwise don't, ala how '\d <view>' works.
Another option might be to omit the schema when an alias is provided, or
maybe even omit the entire table name in favor of the alias.
Just my 2c.
Thanks,
Stephen
Stephen Frost wrote: > * Dave Page (dpage@postgresql.org) wrote: >> /* We only show the rel name, not schema name */ >> relname = get_rel_name(rte->relid); >> >> Anyone know why? This seems like a bug to me given the ambiguity of >> possible output. > > I'd assume it's to keep the explain output smaller with the > expectation/assumption that in general you're going to know. A possible > work-around would be to just always provide table aliases for your > queries, as those are shown in the explain. I have no control over the queries themselves. > In terms of behaviour changes, I think it'd be nice to show the schema > name when necessary but otherwise don't, ala how '\d <view>' works. In my case that would be awkward as pgAdmin would then need to try to work out what the actual table was based on the search path used for the users query. > Another option might be to omit the schema when an alias is provided, or > maybe even omit the entire table name in favor of the alias. That would make it very painful as I'd need to parse the query client side to resolve the table names. Yeuch. Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - not to mention the easiest! Regards, Dave
* Dave Page (dpage@postgresql.org) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >In terms of behaviour changes, I think it'd be nice to show the schema
> >name when necessary but otherwise don't, ala how '\d <view>' works.
>
> In my case that would be awkward as pgAdmin would then need to try to
> work out what the actual table was based on the search path used for the
> users query.
Actually, as mentioned in another thread, a function to take a table
name and a search_path and return the 'fully qualified' table name would
make that much easier, and would be useful in other situations.
> >Another option might be to omit the schema when an alias is provided, or
> >maybe even omit the entire table name in favor of the alias.
>
> That would make it very painful as I'd need to parse the query client
> side to resolve the table names. Yeuch.
Indeed, if you're not constructing the queries that would make things
somewhat difficult. Then again, parsing the explain output seems like
it's going to be rather difficult itself anyway.
> Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option -
> not to mention the easiest!
While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason
it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is
primairly, for humans to read.
Thanks,
Stephen
Stephen Frost wrote: > Indeed, if you're not constructing the queries that would make things > somewhat difficult. Then again, parsing the explain output seems like > it's going to be rather difficult itself anyway. Well, we do that anyway - and just grabbing the base table names isn't too hard. >> Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - >> not to mention the easiest! > > While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason > it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is > primairly, for humans to read. Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise, non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters. Regards, Dave
Stephen Frost wrote: > * Dave Page (dpage@postgresql.org) wrote: >> /* We only show the rel name, not schema name */ >> relname = get_rel_name(rte->relid); >> >> Anyone know why? This seems like a bug to me given the ambiguity of >> possible output. > > I'd assume it's to keep the explain output smaller with the > expectation/assumption that in general you're going to know. A possible > work-around would be to just always provide table aliases for your > queries, as those are shown in the explain. I am hoping that once we have WITH RECURSIVE, we could optionally provide a normalized dump into a table of the EXPLAIN output, that could then be easily "connected" the the old output using WITH RECURSIVE. regards, Lukas
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:20:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > >>Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - > >>not to mention the easiest! > > > >While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason > >it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is > >primairly, for humans to read. > > Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the > current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise, > non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters. Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? FYI a patch was posted for this some time ago, because a friend of mine wanted to help a student to write an EXPLAIN parsing tool. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4 "Having your biases confirmed independently is how scientific progress is made, and hence made our great society what it is today" (Mary Gardiner)
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:47:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > > > I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > > output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > > format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > > commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > > can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > > up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? > > FYI a patch was posted for this some time ago, because a friend of mine > wanted to help a student to write an EXPLAIN parsing tool. Didn't see that one. Explain in XML format? Got an URL for it, I can't seem to find it on -patches. //Magnus
> > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? > > //Magnus > It's good idea. Similar situation is in stack trace output. Pavel
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:20:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >>>> Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - >>>> not to mention the easiest! >>> While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason >>> it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is >>> primairly, for humans to read. >> Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the >> current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise, >> non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters. > > Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? I agree it would be nice to have machine readable explain output. DB2 has the concept of "explain tables". Explain output is written to tables, which tools query and pretty print the output. I like that idea in principle. PostgreSQL is a relational database, so having the explain output in relations make sense. No need for XML or any other extra libraries, in either the server or client. Having the data in relational format allows you to query them. For example, show me all sequential scans, or all nodes where the estimated number of rows is off by a certain factor. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
* Heikki Linnakangas (heikki@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> >Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a
> >second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)?
>
> I agree it would be nice to have machine readable explain output.
Seconded here, I'd much rather see this as a seperate option rather than
cluttering up regular 'explain' output for the humans. I do think we
should provide the schema name when it's not clear from the search_path
tho, since that helps the humans too. :)
> DB2 has the concept of "explain tables". Explain output is written to
> tables, which tools query and pretty print the output. I like that idea
> in principle. PostgreSQL is a relational database, so having the explain
> output in relations make sense. No need for XML or any other extra
> libraries, in either the server or client. Having the data in relational
> format allows you to query them. For example, show me all sequential
> scans, or all nodes where the estimated number of rows is off by a
> certain factor.
I like this approach, the only downside is someone/something needs to manage
those tables, unless you can say where the tables are to put the explain
output into or similar? Also, with tables, if someone really wants XML
the tables can be extracted as XML.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:02:24PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:20:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > >>>>Just adding the schema name seems the most sensible and usable option - > >>>>not to mention the easiest! > >>>While completely ignoring the current behaviour and likely the reason > >>>it's done the way it is now... explain output was, and still is > >>>primairly, for humans to read. > >>Humans deserve schemas as well!! :-). As for the likely reason for the > >>current behaviour, well, I'd rather have precise, > >>non-potentially-ambiguous info than save a few characters. > > > >Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > > >I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > >output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > >format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > >commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > >can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > >up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > >format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > >parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > >field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > > >Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > >second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? > > I agree it would be nice to have machine readable explain output. > > DB2 has the concept of "explain tables". Explain output is written to > tables, which tools query and pretty print the output. I like that idea > in principle. PostgreSQL is a relational database, so having the explain > output in relations make sense. No need for XML or any other extra > libraries, in either the server or client. Having the data in relational > format allows you to query them. For example, show me all sequential > scans, or all nodes where the estimated number of rows is off by a > certain factor. Assuming you can actually *represent* the whole plan as tables, that would of course work fine. But I assume you mean "virtual tables"? So I do EXPLAIN whatever, and get back one or more resultssets with the data? Or do they write it to *actual* tables in the database? Machine-readable is of course the main point - the exact format is more of an implementation detail. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:02:24PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> DB2 has the concept of "explain tables". Explain output is written to >> tables, which tools query and pretty print the output. I like that idea >> in principle. PostgreSQL is a relational database, so having the explain >> output in relations make sense. No need for XML or any other extra >> libraries, in either the server or client. Having the data in relational >> format allows you to query them. For example, show me all sequential >> scans, or all nodes where the estimated number of rows is off by a >> certain factor. > > Assuming you can actually *represent* the whole plan as tables, that would > of course work fine. Sure you can. It's just a question of how complex the schema is :). > But I assume you mean "virtual tables"? So I do > EXPLAIN whatever, and get back one or more resultssets with the data? Or do > they write it to *actual* tables in the database? I'm not sure. DB2 had real tables, but I found that a bit clumsy. It was nice because your old explain results were accumulated, but it was also not nice because of that same thing. One idea would be temporary tables. > Machine-readable is of course the main point - the exact format is more of > an implementation detail. Agreed. A potential problem is that as we add new node types etc., we need to extend the schema (whether it's a real relational schema or XML), and clients need to understand it. But I guess we already have the same problem with clients that parse the current explain output. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:47:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > > > > > I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > > > output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > > > format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > > > commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > > > can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > > > up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > > > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > > > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > > > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > > > > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > > > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? > > > > FYI a patch was posted for this some time ago, because a friend of mine > > wanted to help a student to write an EXPLAIN parsing tool. > > Didn't see that one. Explain in XML format? Got an URL for it, I can't seem > to find it on -patches. I can't find the patch itself ... maybe he didn't ever post it. He last talked about it here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg00455.php BTW can I bug you to add the Message-Ids in the messages as displayed in our archives? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/ "El día que dejes de cambiar dejarás de vivir"
* Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> [070613 09:58]: > BTW can I bug you to add the Message-Ids in the messages as displayed in > our archives? Yes! Yes! Yes! Pretty please! -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c
> indicates that this is intentional:
Quite.
> Anyone know why?
As already noted, it'd usually be clutter in lines that are too long
already. Also, conditionally adding a schema name isn't very good
because it makes life even more complicated for programs that are
parsing EXPLAIN output (yes, there are some).
I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in
an entirely different, more machine-readable format. Not wedded to
XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict ---
there's a lot of variability in the entries already. XML also could
deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops
to represent the plan tree structure in relational form.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:55:19AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:47:30AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > > > Just to open a whole new can of worms ;-) > > > > > > > > I read an article a couple of days ago about the "machine readable showplan > > > > output" in SQL Server 2005 (basically, it's EXPLAIN output but in XML > > > > format). It does make a lot of sense if yourp rimary interface is != > > > > commandline (psql), such as pgadmin or phppgadmin. The idea being that you > > > > can stick in *all* the details you want, since you can't possibly clutter > > > > up the display. And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > > > > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > > > > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > > > > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > > > > > > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > > > > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? > > > > > > FYI a patch was posted for this some time ago, because a friend of mine > > > wanted to help a student to write an EXPLAIN parsing tool. > > > > Didn't see that one. Explain in XML format? Got an URL for it, I can't seem > > to find it on -patches. > > I can't find the patch itself ... maybe he didn't ever post it. He last > talked about it here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg00455.php > > BTW can I bug you to add the Message-Ids in the messages as displayed in > our archives? No. Because I don't know how to do that :-) And what work is done to th archives should be done to redo the whole thing and not bandaid what we have now. That said, you can get the message-id if you do a view-source. It's in a comment at the beginning of the page. //Magnus
On 6/13/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 02:02:24PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> DB2 has the concept of "explain tables". Explain output is written to > >> tables, which tools query and pretty print the output. I like that idea > >> in principle. PostgreSQL is a relational database, so having the explain > >> output in relations make sense. No need for XML or any other extra > >> libraries, in either the server or client. Having the data in relational > >> format allows you to query them. For example, show me all sequential > >> scans, or all nodes where the estimated number of rows is off by a > >> certain factor. > > > > Assuming you can actually *represent* the whole plan as tables, that would > > of course work fine. > > Sure you can. It's just a question of how complex the schema is :). > > > But I assume you mean "virtual tables"? So I do > > EXPLAIN whatever, and get back one or more resultssets with the data? Or do > > they write it to *actual* tables in the database? > > I'm not sure. DB2 had real tables, but I found that a bit clumsy. It was > nice because your old explain results were accumulated, but it was also > not nice because of that same thing. > > One idea would be temporary tables. > > > Machine-readable is of course the main point - the exact format is more of > > an implementation detail. > > Agreed. > > A potential problem is that as we add new node types etc., we need to > extend the schema (whether it's a real relational schema or XML), and > clients need to understand it. But I guess we already have the same > problem with clients that parse the current explain output. Oracle forces you (AFAIK) to create a set of tables to store explain plan output, so when you EXPLAIN, it populates those tables, and then you have to query to get it out. This is nice for admin tools that have to parse the explain output, though it's obviously a pain for explain-ing inside a command-line. An XML explain would be neat. On a different sideline based on the original note of this thread, much as EXPLAIN doesn't include the schema, \d doesn't include the schema to describe INHERIT relationships in 8.2.4. If you have two tables called PARENT, in two different schemas, and a child that inherits from one of them, \d won't tell you which of the two it inherits from. - Josh
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? Yeah, thats been mentioned before. I was looking to bring it up for 8.4. /D
"Josh Tolley" <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
> On a different sideline based on the original note of this thread,
> much as EXPLAIN doesn't include the schema, \d doesn't include the
> schema to describe INHERIT relationships in 8.2.4. If you have two
> tables called PARENT, in two different schemas, and a child that
> inherits from one of them, \d won't tell you which of the two it
> inherits from.
Yes it does, because that's actually regclass output. It'll be
schema-qualified if the table is not visible in your search path.
regards, tom lane
"Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > Assuming you can actually *represent* the whole plan as tables, that would > of course work fine. But I assume you mean "virtual tables"? Are you saying there are data structures relational databases aren't good at representing? In Oracle you had to run explain and the go run a query against your plan_table to generate a text report of the plan. It was kind of cumbersome in the usual case but it's very convenient for gui tools which can then perform different queries than users would run from the command-line client. The main advantage of using real tables is that you can then let your application run unchanged and go look at the plans that it generated from another connection. The plan it generated may well be different from what you would get if you tried to run the same query later in a different connection. It also means you could go query for things like "what query performed the largest disk sort" or "what is the average cost/millisecond ratio" or "which query nodes had the largest and smallest expected-rows/actual rows ratio" etc. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Tom Lane wrote: > As already noted, it'd usually be clutter in lines that are too long > already. Also, conditionally adding a schema name isn't very good > because it makes life even more complicated for programs that are > parsing EXPLAIN output (yes, there are some). Well, yes - that's precisely what pgAdmin does, which is why I'd want to see the schema name all the time. Up until now though all we've done is graphically represent the plan, so the object names haven't really been an issue. To take that further and allow the user to drill down to further information, or to provide tools to help tune queries we need to know for certain what table we're dealing with. Regards, Dave
Tom Lane wrote: > I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in > an entirely different, more machine-readable format. Not wedded to > XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict --- > there's a lot of variability in the entries already. XML also could > deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops > to represent the plan tree structure in relational form. > > I agree. XML seems like a fairly natural fit for this. Just as people should not try to shoehorn everything into XML, neither should they try to shoehorn everything into a relational format either. Now all we need is an XML schema for it ;-) cheers andrew
Tom Lane wrote: > I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in > an entirely different, more machine-readable format. Not wedded to > XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict --- > there's a lot of variability in the entries already. XML also could > deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops > to represent the plan tree structure in relational form. Which was my point regarding needing WITH RECURSIVE to make this truely useful. XML output is nice, but only as an addition imho. Then again it would indeed be quite useful for external development tools. regards, Lukas
> > BTW can I bug you to add the Message-Ids in the messages as displayed in
> > our archives?
> That said, you can get the message-id if you do a view-source. It's in a
> comment at the beginning of the page.
I hadn't seen that before...
2 "bookmarklets" I find useful and have in my "Personal Toolbar Folder": - GMANE message lookup:javascript:var
id=prompt('EnterMessage-ID','');window.location='http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id='+id;
- Mhonarc message -> GMANE lookup javascript:var id=prompt('Enter Mhonarc
URL','');window.location='http://www.highrise.ca/cgi-bin/mhonarc/'+id;
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c
>> indicates that this is intentional:
>
> Quite.
>
>> Anyone know why?
>
> As already noted, it'd usually be clutter in lines that are too long
> already. Also, conditionally adding a schema name isn't very good
> because it makes life even more complicated for programs that are
> parsing EXPLAIN output (yes, there are some).
We shouldn't do it conditionally. We should do it explicitly. If I have
a partitioned table with 30 child partitions, how do I know which table
is getting the seqscan?
Joshua D. Drake
>
> I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in
> an entirely different, more machine-readable format. Not wedded to
> XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict ---
> there's a lot of variability in the entries already. XML also could
> deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops
> to represent the plan tree structure in relational form.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: >> I agree with the idea of having an option to get EXPLAIN's output in >> an entirely different, more machine-readable format. Not wedded to >> XML, but I fear that a pure relational structure might be too strict --- >> there's a lot of variability in the entries already. XML also could >> deal naturally with nesting, whereas we'd have to jump through hoops >> to represent the plan tree structure in relational form. >> >> > > I agree. XML seems like a fairly natural fit for this. Just as people > should not try to shoehorn everything into XML, neither should they try > to shoehorn everything into a relational format either. > > Now all we need is an XML schema for it ;-) Well I am not a big fan of XML but it certainly seems applicable in this case. Joshua D. Drake > > cheers > > andrew > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Looking to fix this, a comment in src/backend/commands/explain.c
>> indicates that this is intentional:
>
> Quite.
>
>> Anyone know why?
>
> As already noted, it'd usually be clutter in lines that are too long
> already. Also, conditionally adding a schema name isn't very good
> because it makes life even more complicated for programs that are
> parsing EXPLAIN output (yes, there are some).
Arguably this is a bug if it's causing pg_admin difficulties in parsing the
output. Even for a user in an environment where, for example, he has several
identical schemas and may be accidentally getting a different table than he's
expecting the current output is ambiguous.
Attached is a small patch which adds this conditionally on a guc that pg_admin
or other GUI tools could set, leaving it unchanged for users.
But it doesn't really seem like all that much clutter to add it to the scans
all the time:
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=3.77..1337.74 rows=62 width=8)
-> Hash Join (cost=3.77..92.30 rows=123 width=8)
Hash Cond: (p.oid = (a.aggfnoid)::oid)
-> Seq Scan on pg_catalog.pg_proc p (cost=0.00..78.49 rows=2349 width=4)
-> Hash (cost=2.23..2.23 rows=123 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on pg_catalog.pg_aggregate a (cost=0.00..2.23 rows=123 width=8)
-> Index Scan using pg_operator_oid_index on pg_catalog.pg_operator o (cost=0.00..10.11 rows=1 width=4)
Index Cond: (o.oid = a.aggsortop)
Filter: (NOT (subplan))
SubPlan
-> Index Scan using pg_amop_opr_fam_index on pg_catalog.pg_amop (cost=1.05..9.33 rows=1 width=0)
Index Cond: (amopopr = $1)
Filter: ((amopmethod = $0) AND (amoplefttype = $2) AND (amoprighttype = $3))
InitPlan
-> Seq Scan on pg_catalog.pg_am (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=1 width=4)
Filter: (amname = 'btree'::"name")
(16 rows)
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> I agree. XML seems like a fairly natural fit for this. Just as people should >> not try to shoehorn everything into XML, neither should they try to shoehorn >> everything into a relational format either. >> >> Now all we need is an XML schema for it ;-) > > Well I am not a big fan of XML but it certainly seems applicable in this > case. I'm not a fan either so perhaps I'm biased, but this seems like a good example of where it would be an *awful* idea. Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc. How would I, with XML output, do something like: SELECT distinct node.relation FROM plan_table WHERE node.expected_rows < node.actual_rows*2; or SELECT node.type, average(node.ms/node.cost) FROM plan_table GROUP BY node.type; -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > And you stick them in a well-defined XML format (or another > format if you happen to hate XML) where the client-side program can easily > parse out whatever it needs. It's also future-proof - if you add a new > field somewhere, the client program parser won't break. > > Something worth doing? Not to replace the current explain output, but as a > second option (EXPLAIN XML whatever)? This reminded me of a quick function I wrote up for my PGCon talk last month. I've posted it on the blog: http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/106-Putting-EXPLAIN-results-into-a-table.html I'd rather see tables with a convert-to-XML function than direct XML FWIW. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200706131211 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFGcBdnvJuQZxSWSsgRA/irAJsH0ZT3wLNN4mLirsTryiK1m9gyHwCg6+9A 0MuJqGxJ9gkEIWVUeq4iXag= =NeB/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Arguably this is a bug if it's causing pg_admin difficulties in parsing the
> output. Even for a user in an environment where, for example, he has several
> identical schemas and may be accidentally getting a different table than he's
> expecting the current output is ambiguous.
> Attached is a small patch which adds this conditionally on a guc that
> pg_admin or other GUI tools could set, leaving it unchanged for users.
That makes things *worse* not better, since now tools would have to
deal with both possibilities.
regards, tom lane
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>>> I agree. XML seems like a fairly natural fit for this. Just as people should
>>> not try to shoehorn everything into XML, neither should they try to shoehorn
>>> everything into a relational format either.
>>>
>>> Now all we need is an XML schema for it ;-)
>> Well I am not a big fan of XML but it certainly seems applicable in this
>> case.
>
> I'm not a fan either so perhaps I'm biased, but this seems like a good example
> of where it would be an *awful* idea.
>
> Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it
> into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison
> between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc.
Honestly, I had never even considered doing such a thing. I would just
like a nice way to parse explain output :)
Joshua D. Drake
>
> How would I, with XML output, do something like:
>
> SELECT distinct node.relation
> FROM plan_table
> WHERE node.expected_rows < node.actual_rows*2;
>
> or
>
> SELECT node.type, average(node.ms/node.cost)
> FROM plan_table
> GROUP BY node.type;
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Gregory Stark wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> I agree. XML seems like a fairly natural fit for this. Just as people should >>> not try to shoehorn everything into XML, neither should they try to shoehorn >>> everything into a relational format either. >>> >>> Now all we need is an XML schema for it ;-) >> Well I am not a big fan of XML but it certainly seems applicable in this >> case. > > I'm not a fan either so perhaps I'm biased, but this seems like a good example > of where it would be an *awful* idea. > > Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it > into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison > between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc. > > How would I, with XML output, do something like: > > SELECT distinct node.relation > FROM plan_table > WHERE node.expected_rows < node.actual_rows*2; > > or > > SELECT node.type, average(node.ms/node.cost) > FROM plan_table > GROUP BY node.type; I believe that XQuery actually supports such queries. So if postgres supported XQuery (or does it already? I honestly don't know), writing such a query wouldn't be that hard I think. The execution probably won't be super-efficient, but for query plans that seems OK. greetings, Florian Pflug
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it
> into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison
> between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc.
Sure you can, just not in SQL ;-)
Given the amount of trouble we'd have to go to to put the data into a
pure SQL format, I don't think that's exactly an ideal answer either.
I'm for making the raw EXPLAIN output be in a simple and robust format,
which people can then postprocess however they want --- including
forcing it into SQL if that's what they want. But just because we're a
SQL database doesn't mean we should think SQL is the best answer to
every problem.
While I'm surely not an XML fanboy, it looks better suited to this
problem than a pure relational representation would be.
regards, tom lane
On 6/13/07, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I'm not a fan either so perhaps I'm biased, but this seems like a good example > of where it would be an *awful* idea. > > Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it > into constituent bits and display it. "...and display it" -- this, I suppose, covers the most frequent needs (starting from displaying entire plans in some tools and finishing with odd but useful examples like http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2005-08/msg00046.php). > You cant do any sort of comparison > between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc. Wrong. > How would I, with XML output, do something like: > > SELECT distinct node.relation > FROM plan_table > WHERE node.expected_rows < node.actual_rows*2; > > or > > SELECT node.type, average(node.ms/node.cost) > FROM plan_table > GROUP BY node.type; XPath can help here. Now almost every language has XML with XPath support. That's the point, that's why XML is suitable here -- it simplifies application development (in this specific case ;-) ). -- Best regards, Nikolay
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> Attached is a small patch which adds this conditionally on a guc that >> pg_admin or other GUI tools could set, leaving it unchanged for users. > > That makes things *worse* not better, since now tools would have to > deal with both possibilities. I was thinking tools would set the guc before issuing an EXPLAIN they planned to parse. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 14:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > Arguably this is a bug if it's causing pg_admin difficulties in parsing the > > output. Even for a user in an environment where, for example, he has several > > identical schemas and may be accidentally getting a different table than he's > > expecting the current output is ambiguous. > > > Attached is a small patch which adds this conditionally on a guc that > > pg_admin or other GUI tools could set, leaving it unchanged for users. > > That makes things *worse* not better, since now tools would have to > deal with both possibilities. The context here was a new feature in PgAdmin, which needs to be able to parse the SQL *and* find out the schema of a table. The idea was to have a tool that would issue an EXPLAIN *and* collect all the other relevant details required to submit an optimizer question to the lists. The tool would then be able to check for simple things like not having run ANALYZE. That feature would be very useful in identifying optimizer issues, as well as filtering out many requests that arrive, only to be easily explainable. Greg's small patch will allow this useful utility to be available for use with the 8.3 release package, so I hope you'll reconsider. Of course, XML output can be done for the next release. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Once you have an XML plan what can you do with it? All you can do is parse it >> into constituent bits and display it. You cant do any sort of comparison >> between plans, aggregate results, search for plans matching constraints, etc. > > Sure you can, just not in SQL ;-) > > Given the amount of trouble we'd have to go to to put the data into a > pure SQL format, I don't think that's exactly an ideal answer either. > I'm for making the raw EXPLAIN output be in a simple and robust format, > which people can then postprocess however they want --- including > forcing it into SQL if that's what they want. But just because we're a > SQL database doesn't mean we should think SQL is the best answer to > every problem. > > While I'm surely not an XML fanboy, it looks better suited to this > problem than a pure relational representation would be. If we are looking into such a format we could even think a bit about including basic plan-influencing information like work_mem, enable_* settings, effective_cache_size,.. there too ... Stefan