Re: Select count(*), the sequel
| От | Vitalii Tymchyshyn |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Select count(*), the sequel |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4CBBFE2F.3010801@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Select count(*), the sequel (Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Select count(*), the sequel
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
16.10.10 19:51, Mladen Gogala написав(ла): > There was some doubt as for the speed of doing the select count(*) in > PostgreSQL and Oracle. > To that end, I copied the most part of the Oracle table I used before > to Postgres. Although the copy > wasn't complete, the resulting table is already significantly larger > than the table it was copied from. The result still shows that Oracle > is significantly faster: Hello. Did you vacuum postgresql DB before the count(*). I ask this because (unless table was created & loaded in same transaction) on the first scan, postgresql has to write hint bits to the whole table. Second scan may be way faster. Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: