QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..458.00 rows=10000 width=244)
+ Planning time: 0.113 ms
</screen>
</para>
actually returned, updated, or deleted by the query.
</para>
+ <para>
+ The <literal>Planning time</literal> shown is the time it took to generate
+ the query plan from the parsed query and optimize it. It does not include
+ rewriting and parsing.
+ </para>
+
<para>
Returning to our example:
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..458.00 rows=10000 width=244)
+ Planning time: 0.113 ms
</screen>
</para>
------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..483.00 rows=7001 width=244)
Filter: (unique1 < 7000)
+ Planning time: 0.104 ms
</screen>
Notice that the <command>EXPLAIN</> output shows the <literal>WHERE</>
Recheck Cond: (unique1 < 100)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1 (cost=0.00..5.04 rows=101 width=0)
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.093 ms
</screen>
Here the planner has decided to use a two-step plan: the child plan
Filter: (stringu1 = 'xxx'::name)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1 (cost=0.00..5.04 rows=101 width=0)
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.089 ms
</screen>
The added condition <literal>stringu1 = 'xxx'</literal> reduces the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 (cost=0.29..8.30 rows=1 width=244)
Index Cond: (unique1 = 42)
+ Planning time: 0.076 ms
</screen>
In this type of plan the table rows are fetched in index order, which
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2 (cost=0.00..19.78 rows=999 width=0)
Index Cond: (unique2 > 9000)
+ Planning time: 0.094 ms
</screen>
But this requires visiting both indexes, so it's not necessarily a win
-> Index Scan using tenk1_unique2 on tenk1 (cost=0.29..71.27 rows=10 width=244)
Index Cond: (unique2 > 9000)
Filter: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.087 ms
</screen>
</para>
Index Cond: (unique1 < 10)
-> Index Scan using tenk2_unique2 on tenk2 t2 (cost=0.29..7.91 rows=1 width=244)
Index Cond: (unique2 = t1.unique2)
+ Planning time: 0.117 ms
</screen>
</para>
-> Materialize (cost=0.29..8.51 rows=10 width=244)
-> Index Scan using tenk2_unique2 on tenk2 t2 (cost=0.29..8.46 rows=10 width=244)
Index Cond: (unique2 < 10)
+ Planning time: 0.119 ms
</screen>
The condition <literal>t1.hundred < t2.hundred</literal> can't be
Recheck Cond: (unique1 < 100)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1 (cost=0.00..5.04 rows=101 width=0)
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.182 ms
</screen>
</para>
-> Sort (cost=197.83..200.33 rows=1000 width=244)
Sort Key: t2.unique2
-> Seq Scan on onek t2 (cost=0.00..148.00 rows=1000 width=244)
+ Planning time: 0.195 ms
</screen>
</para>
-> Index Scan using tenk1_unique2 on tenk1 t1 (cost=0.29..656.28 rows=101 width=244)
Filter: (unique1 < 100)
-> Index Scan using onek_unique2 on onek t2 (cost=0.28..224.79 rows=1000 width=244)
+ Planning time: 0.176 ms
</screen>
which shows that the planner thinks that sorting <literal>onek</> by
Index Cond: (unique1 < 10)
-> Index Scan using tenk2_unique2 on tenk2 t2 (cost=0.29..7.91 rows=1 width=244) (actual time=0.021..0.022 rows=1 loops=10)
Index Cond: (unique2 = t1.unique2)
+ Planning time: 0.181 ms
Total runtime: 0.501 ms
</screen>
Recheck Cond: (unique1 < 100)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1 (cost=0.00..5.04 rows=101 width=0) (actual time=0.049..0.049 rows=100 loops=1)
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.194 ms
Total runtime: 8.008 ms
</screen>
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..483.00 rows=7000 width=244) (actual time=0.016..5.107 rows=7000 loops=1)
Filter: (ten < 7)
Rows Removed by Filter: 3000
+ Planning time: 0.083 ms
Total runtime: 5.905 ms
</screen>
Seq Scan on polygon_tbl (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.044..0.044 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (f1 @> '((0.5,2))'::polygon)
Rows Removed by Filter: 4
+ Planning time: 0.040 ms
Total runtime: 0.083 ms
</screen>
Index Scan using gpolygonind on polygon_tbl (cost=0.13..8.15 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=0.062..0.062 rows=0 loops=1)
Index Cond: (f1 @> '((0.5,2))'::polygon)
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 1
+ Planning time: 0.034 ms
Total runtime: 0.144 ms
</screen>
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique2 (cost=0.00..19.78 rows=999 width=0) (actual time=0.227..0.227 rows=999 loops=1)
Index Cond: (unique2 > 9000)
Buffers: shared hit=5
+ Planning time: 0.088 ms
Total runtime: 0.423 ms
</screen>
Recheck Cond: (unique1 < 100)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_unique1 (cost=0.00..5.04 rows=101 width=0) (actual time=0.043..0.043 rows=100 loops=1)
Index Cond: (unique1 < 100)
+ Planning time: 0.079 ms
Total runtime: 14.727 ms
ROLLBACK;
Index Cond: (unique2 > 9000)
Filter: (unique1 < 100)
Rows Removed by Filter: 287
+ Planning time: 0.096 ms
Total runtime: 0.336 ms
</screen>
<para>
Include information on the estimated startup and total cost of each
plan node, as well as the estimated number of rows and the estimated
- width of each row. This parameter defaults to <literal>TRUE</literal>.
+ width of each row. Also, include the time spent planning the query,
+ if available. This parameter defaults to <literal>TRUE</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..155.00 rows=10000 width=4)
-(1 row)
+ Planning time: 0.114 ms
+(2 rows)
</programlisting>
</para>
"Total Cost": 155.00, +
"Plan Rows": 10000, +
"Plan Width": 4 +
- } +
+ }. +
+ "Planning Time": 0.114 +
} +
]
(1 row)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using fi on foo (cost=0.00..5.98 rows=1 width=4)
Index Cond: (i = 4)
-(2 rows)
+ Planning time: 0.073 ms
+(3 rows)
</programlisting>
</para>
Total Cost: 5.98 +
Plan Rows: 1 +
Plan Width: 4 +
- Index Cond: "(i = 4)"
+ Index Cond: "(i = 4)" +
+ Planning Time: 0.073
(1 row)
</programlisting>
Aggregate (cost=23.93..23.93 rows=1 width=4)
-> Index Scan using fi on foo (cost=0.00..23.92 rows=6 width=4)
Index Cond: (i < 10)
+ Planning time: 0.088 ms
(3 rows)
</programlisting>
</para>
Group Key: foo
-> Index Scan using test_pkey on test (cost=0.29..9.29 rows=50 width=8) (actual time=0.039..0.091 rows=99 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((id > $1) AND (id < $2))
+ Planning time: 0.197 ms
Total runtime: 0.225 ms
(5 rows)
</programlisting>
(*ExplainOneQuery_hook) (query, into, es, queryString, params);
else
{
- PlannedStmt *plan;
+ PlannedStmt *plan;
+ instr_time planstart, planduration;
+
+ INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(planstart);
/* plan the query */
plan = pg_plan_query(query, 0, params);
+ INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(planduration);
+ INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(planduration, planstart);
+
/* run it (if needed) and produce output */
- ExplainOnePlan(plan, into, es, queryString, params);
+ ExplainOnePlan(plan, into, es, queryString, params, &planduration);
}
}
*/
void
ExplainOnePlan(PlannedStmt *plannedstmt, IntoClause *into, ExplainState *es,
- const char *queryString, ParamListInfo params)
+ const char *queryString, ParamListInfo params,
+ const instr_time *planduration)
{
DestReceiver *dest;
QueryDesc *queryDesc;
/* Create textual dump of plan tree */
ExplainPrintPlan(es, queryDesc);
+ if (es->costs && planduration)
+ {
+ double plantime = INSTR_TIME_GET_DOUBLE(*planduration);
+
+ if (es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)
+ appendStringInfo(es->str, "Planning time: %.3f ms\n",
+ 1000.0 * plantime);
+ else
+ ExplainPropertyFloat("Planning Time", 1000.0 * plantime, 3, es);
+ }
+
/* Print info about runtime of triggers */
if (es->analyze)
ExplainPrintTriggers(es, queryDesc);