Re: Seqscan rather than Index

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 05:02:29PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote:
>   It depends more on your disk IO than the processor.  Counting isn't
>   processor intensive, but reading through the entire table on disk
>   is.  I've also seen a huge difference between select count(*) and
>   select count(1) in older versions, haven't tried it on a recent
>   version however.

Like I said, all in cache, so no disk IO. count(*) and count(1) give me
identical results. (BTW, I don't think this is a count problem, it's a
"sequential scan" problem -- I'm just trying to find out if this is natural
or not, ie. if this is just something I have to expect in a relational
database, even with no I/O.)

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/