Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Grant Johnson
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Дата
Msg-id 4D4B53E4.6010701@amadensor.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
Список pgsql-performance

On PostgreSQL, the difference in no hints and hints for that one query
with skewed data is that the query finishes a little faster.   On some
others, which shall remain nameless, it is the difference between
finishing in seconds or days, or maybe never.  Hints can be useful, but
I can also see why they are not a top priority.  They are rarely needed,
and only when working around a bug.  If you want them so badly, you have
the source, write a contrib module  (can you do that on Oracle or
MSSQL?)  If I have a choice between the developers spending time on
implementing hints, and spending time on improving the optimiser, I'll
take the optimiser.

Tom Kyte agrees:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:8912905298920
http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2006/08/words-of-wisdom.html



Oracle can be faster on count queries, but that is the only case I have
seen.   Generally on most other queries, especially when it involves
complex joins, or indexes on text fields, PostgreSQL is faster on the
same hardware.


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeremy Harris
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Следующее
От: Mark Kirkwood
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...