Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Дата
Msg-id 28283.1319830056@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm. �I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts. �It seems
>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
>> inverses.

> Seems reasonable.  It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.

Yeah, I find that unlikely as well.  But leaving Asserts in place would
tell us.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: ecpg-related build failure with make 3.82
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?