Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Pavan Deolasee
Тема
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas
Дата
Msg-id
2e78013d0803120959r515667ecl4edb3bd3afbfbdfe@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas "Stephen Denne" <Stephen.Denne@datamail.co.nz>
Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Mark Mielke  wrote:
>
>
>
>  Fine - once per transaction instead of once per insert. Still, if there is
> overhead to this (updating a secondary summary table), does it really make
> sense to have it for every table? Most of my tables do not require count(*)
> on the whole table (actually - none of them do). For the same reason as I
> don't want oid, I don't think I would want "fast count" capabilities to
> impact my regular queries. Again, I don't think count(*) on the whole table
> is a particularly useful case. count(*) on particular subsets of the data
> may be, but of the whole table?
>

ISTM that you are complaining because we never had an *fast* count(*)
and adding that now comes at a cost. Had it been there from day one with
the same overhead as we are talking about now, nobody would have
complained :-)

Anyways, your point is taken and it would be great if can make it configurable,
if not table level then at least globally.


Thanks,
Pavan


-- 
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
FAQ