public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Alena Rybakina <[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 09:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+TgmobD4_fz4JnGkYey_2rsXi5mxucDPR2ot6rX9OoHBw+qhg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEze2Wiap5v-H-5QqGq-=DBG99CK-RgHpQUFaU6TENh_+zCh_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoZv8DvmeQHQAX+rkn68id2N+DoUhFZB36d-_w1tyAeqeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmobfeePej0uNfbLy0v6jUrB3D9m1Kh+QQ40_-A9KQjkqUw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<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>
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!
--
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+TgmobD4_fz4JnGkYey_2rsXi5mxucDPR2ot6rX9OoHBw+qhg@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