DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=SaA4C0t9z3RhrNgYjY+Ffhwu2bTIMPQWbU17dSiRxkmPkHMhP31GXSD3BP2TXyfiHG
	1lLEGWpqJEvUPdtiwuY2lIliL4rdRU5FoKSDN0MG7/IKtN4zJ0f2HUHJKkLT8jlBEFzZ
	hRMNm05dNjPGkpAA9kvPT/XluI+sTOh0eWEc4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21013.1243618236@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <603c8f070905281830g2e5419c4xad2946d149e21f9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A1F4FD5.7060204@timbira.com>
	<603c8f070905282012h7eb2210btb808f623a2757de0@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090529041623.GE15201@eddie> <21013.1243618236@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:39:23 -0400
Message-ID: <603c8f070905291139m44c7a975h4e12d30749c0a6df@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>,
	Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
>>>> Don't you think is too strange having, for example, 6.67 rows?
>>>
>>> No stranger than having it say 7 when it's really not. =A0Actually mine
>>> mostly come out 1 when the real value is somewhere between 0.5 and
>>> 1.49. =A0:-(
>
>> +1. It would help users realize more quickly that some of the values in =
the
>> EXPLAIN output are, for instance, *average* number of rows *per iteratio=
n* of a
>> nested loop, say, rather than total rows found in all loops.
>
> I think it would only be sensible to show fractional digits if nloops is
> greater than 1. =A0Otherwise the value must in fact be an integer, and
> you're just going to confuse people more by suggesting that it might not
> be.

That might be over-engineering, but I'll take it.

...Robert