public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Alena Rybakina <[email protected]>
Cc: 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: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 18:32:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+Tgmob2FcdNQnfv20hFHMiQjqsmak4NnkmxjNQnNpzzbowmgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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>
	<[email protected]>

On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:18 PM Alena Rybakina <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I thought the same back when I first started using PostgreSQL
and had to learn that it wasn't the case. I still think that's what we
*should* be displaying -- I think dividing by nloops obscures the data
users actually want. But it would admittedly be a pretty big
compatibility break at this point, and at least if we display a couple
of decimal places it's more possible to approximate the undivided
value.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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: <CA+Tgmob2FcdNQnfv20hFHMiQjqsmak4NnkmxjNQnNpzzbowmgQ@mail.gmail.com>

* 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