MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <603c8f070905281830g2e5419c4xad2946d149e21f9d@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A1F4FD5.7060204@timbira.com> <4A249CE9.6050708@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
 <1243950060.23910.58.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
 <B8F900A1-1ACB-4C84-84D6-676B2B7DF8A2@gmail.com>
 <11926.1243953507@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CALtqXTeQ+QCFT0DWcM5LOjnf9_Fz59+ALFejNEFwpFhW-9o4ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwYg+HtK+zFKENbsrLgz9x8LL1HWau6DR7Om6o1dT=tt6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALtqXTcrXtwZ3RRg2FH8yt8mDxRypXrUbw6a=zp0x2fKm_5xNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm3inETBcHYyBeevfKCjaxB24N4BVhDiZVdBooEdtxi1_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALDaNm3inETBcHYyBeevfKCjaxB24N4BVhDiZVdBooEdtxi1_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 13:53:16 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAM-w4HNhqLiqmQzw8QNKP9_vApa9xHN8Ph=EV_GJRsYzzUvg8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
To: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>,
	Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM-w4HNhqLiqmQzw8QNKP9_vApa9xHN8Ph%3DEV_GJRsYzzUvg8w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> -               ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)
> +               ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960.00

At the not inconsiderable risk of bike-shedding....

I'm wondering if printing something like 0.00 will be somewhat
deceptive when the real value is non-zero but less than 1 row per 200
loops. I wonder if the number of decimal places should be calculated
to produce a minimum of one non-zero digit for non-zero values.

-- 
greg