Re: [HACKERS] []performance issues
От | David Blood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] []performance issues |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002e01c23a3d$4a656410$1f00a8c0@redwood обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] []performance issues (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] []performance issues
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Count() is slow even on your Sun server with 16gb ram? How big is the database? David Blood -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:40 AM To: PostgreSQL-development Cc: PostgreSQL general list Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] []performance issues On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:48:39PM +0400, Yaroslav Dmitriev wrote: > > So I am still interested in PostgreSQL's ability to deal with > multimillon records tables. [x-posted and Reply-To: to -general; this isn't a development problem.] We have tables with multimillion records, and they are fast. But not fast to count(). The MVCC design of PostgreSQL will give you very few concurerncy problems, but you pay for that in the response time of certain kinds of aggregates, which cannot use an index. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 +1 416 646 3304 x110 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: