Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Date
Msg-id 603c8f071001130902h45f1a6b4yd99b6558ca9e85d1@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Yeah.  My question is whether it's acceptable to add an extra line to
>> the EXPLAIN output for every hash join, even w/o ANALYZE.
>
> We could add it if either VERBOSE or ANALYZE appears.  Not sure if
> that's just too much concern for backwards compatibility, though.

I think having it controlled by either of two options is to weird.
I'm not worried so much about backward compatibility as I am about
cluttering the output.  Maybe making it controlled by VERBOSE is the
right thing to do, although I'm sort of tempted to figure out if there
is more useful instrumentation that could be done and put it all under
a new option called, say, HASH_DETAILS.  Not sure what else we could
show though.

...Robert

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Next
From: Eduardo Piombino
Date:
Subject: Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server