Re: Improving count(*)

Add idea to TODO:
* Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes  Currently indexes do not have enough tuple visibility information  to
allowdata to be pulled from the index without also accessing  the heap.  One way to allow this is to set a bit on index
tuples to indicate if a tuple is currently visible to all transactions  when the first valid heap lookup happens.  This
bitwould have to  be cleared when a heap tuple is expired.  Another idea is to maintain  a bitmap of heap pages where
allrows are visible to all backends,  and allow index lookups to reference that bitmap to avoid heap  lookups, perhaps
thesame bitmap we might add someday to determine  which heap pages need vacuuming.
 

I am thinking we are at the point where between this usage and vacuum
that a bitmap for each table is something we should work on for 8.2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:46:42PM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > >One of the major complaints is always "Select count(*) is slow".
> > > Although there seem to have been plenty of ideas on this they all seem 
> > > to just provide a solution for the "whole table" case. It might be that 
> > > the solution provides other benefits, but for this one case it does seem 
> > > like a lot of work.
> > 
> > Or, it wasn't explained properly as to how the WHERE clause would
> > function.
> > 
> > The solution involving an index that has visibility information should
> > work fine with a WHERE clause. Only index rows that match the clause
> > are counted.
> > 
> > A solution enhancing the above mentioned indexes, to maintain a count
> > for whole index blocks, would allow whole index blocks that satisfy
> > the WHERE clause to be counted, assuming the whole index block is
> > visible in the current transaction.
> 
> I think it would be very difficult to generate a per-index-page
> visibility bit because I can't think of a normal database operation that
> would allow us to update it.  It requires that an index scan visit every
> heap page to check the visibility of the tuples.  However, we almost
> never do a full-index scan because it is so much slower than a heap
> scan.  It would be easy to keep a heap-visible bit up-to-date (because
> we do full-heap scans occasionally), but that would require the index
> to load the heap page to find the bit.  (The bit isn't on the index, it
> is on the heap).
> 
> Jan has been talking about have a bitmap to track pages that need
> vacuuming, and I am wondering if the same system could be used to track
> the heap-dirty bits.  Putting one bit on every 8k disk page means we have
> to load the 8k page to read the bit, while a centralized bitmap would
> load 64k page bits in a single 8k page.  That one page would cover 500MB
> of a table.  Seems vacuum could use the same bitmap values.
> 
> Assuming we track 100 tables regularly, that would require 800k of shared
> memory.  We would have to pagein/out the bitmaps as needed, but we could
> throw them away on a crash and rebuild as part of normal operation.
> 
> FSM has not been a concurrency bottleneck, so I am thinking this would
> not be either.
> 
> I suppose it would require a new filesystem file for each table.
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073