Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Initial implementation of explain plan #8776

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 1, 2017
Merged

Conversation

jsternberg
Copy link
Contributor

@jsternberg jsternberg commented Aug 31, 2017

It prints the statistics of each iterator that will access the storage
engine. For each access of the storage engine, it will print the number
of shards that will potentially be accessed, the number of files that
may be accessed, the number of series that will be created, the number
of blocks, and the size of those blocks.

Copy link
Contributor

@benbjohnson benbjohnson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

It prints the statistics of each iterator that will access the storage
engine. For each access of the storage engine, it will print the number
of shards that will potentially be accessed, the number of files that
may be accessed, the number of series that will be created, the number
of blocks, and the size of those blocks.
@jsternberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

I pushed a small change so that attempting to use analyze would return an error.

I want to keep the AST parsing for analyze there because we want to add it, but it's not implemented and I don't want to give people the impression it is implemented.

@jsternberg jsternberg merged commit 091ea5f into master Sep 1, 2017
@jsternberg jsternberg deleted the js-explain-plan branch September 1, 2017 21:19
@jsternberg jsternberg mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants