public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Alena Rybakina <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Ilia Evdokimov <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Guillaume Lelarge <[email protected]>
Cc: Matheus Alcantara <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:18:52 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobD4_fz4JnGkYey_2rsXi5mxucDPR2ot6rX9OoHBw+qhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoZv8DvmeQHQAX+rkn68id2N+DoUhFZB36d-_w1tyAeqeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmobVWYnYDj1HZ--iqeKx+n7zTgtYCar+YfZ0V6wiX-t0Mg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmoaob_3aNF5S49WFoJs6Rb37rNnd5WH_e9nXAn_jtWWCLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobXwtS0ncAVfukE-Uhhy8Zt5rQWwQb2WHBcSop8r4Lcgw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoZp7LstKmDwyfUuB+6aFFhn0N3fv2QxTD=dkrxXVJ5dZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoazzVHn8sFOMFAEwoqBTDxKT45D7mvkyeHgqtoD2cn58Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoZxRP8cEhfdF27k600B_=8DXpj=8kiM7s_6qCHCqxQPmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoapgkOFmezwVjJbs5Xq9F+Mfm9aNouBgTq_AuqQJkLYEg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAEze2Wiap5v-H-5QqGq-=DBG99CK-RgHpQUFaU6TENh_+zCh_w@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmobD4_fz4JnGkYey_2rsXi5mxucDPR2ot6rX9OoHBw+qhg@mail.gmail.com>
On 06.03.2025 17:13, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 8:30 AM Matthias van de Meent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 14:18, Alena Rybakina <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi! I got a query plan with a strange number of rows. Could you please
>>> help me understand it?
>>>
>>> To be honest I can't understand why 0.50 number of rows here?
>> Because the scan matched only ~(500 rows over 999 iterations = 500/999
>> ~=) 0.50 rows for every loop, on average, for these plan nodes:
> This is a good and correct explanation, but I'm VERY curious to hear
> more from Alena. Like, Tom expressed the concern before we did this
> that the fractional digits would confuse people, and the fact that
> someone who is a regular participant on this mailing list was one of
> the people confused gives credence to that concern. But I want to know
> what exactly Alena found (or finds) confusing here. The Nested Loop
> executes 999 times, so perhaps Alena thought that 0.50 was the TOTAL
> number of rows across ALL of those executions rather than the AVERAGE
> number of rows per execution? Because then 0.50 would indeed be a very
> surprising result. Or maybe she just didn't realize that part of the
> plan executed 999 times? Or something else?
>
> Alena, if you're willing, please elaborate on what you think is confusing here!
To be honest, I initially took it as the total number of tuples and
couldn't figure out for myself how to interpret the result - 0 tuples or
1 tuple in the end. Maybe it wasn't quite correct to perceive it that
way, but Matthias's explanation helped me figure out the reason why such
a strange result was obtained, although it's not usual to see it.
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
view thread (38+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox