Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Тема Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility
Дата
Msg-id 20080109210936.0d82bdf7@webthatworks.it
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility  (Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at>)
Ответы Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility  (Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at>)
Список pgsql-general
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:

> The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.

...

thanks.

> In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
> regardless of other transactions. Which way do you prefer?

Considering the relative value of count my interest was for something
that is even less precise than the "usual" count but performs better.
I'm not proposing to turn Postgres into MySQL.

--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Experiences with extensibility
Следующее
От: Kris Jurka
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Prepared Statements