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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Kevin Grittner
Тема Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Дата
Msg-id 4EA564DA02000025000424DC@gw.wicourts.gov
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah, TOAST indexes are 2-column.  It would be best to exclude
> those from your counts, since it seems pretty unlikely that anyone
> will care how fast nodeIndexonlyscan.c is for scans on toast
> tables.
User indexes (excluding toast):indnatts | count 
----------+-------       1 |   200       2 |   222       3 |   155       4 |    76       5 |    43       6 |    13
7 |     2       9 |     1
 
(8 rows)
System indexes (excluding toast):indnatts | count 
----------+-------       1 |    46       2 |    24       3 |     9       4 |     5
(4 rows)
> It doesn't look to me like the mean is above 2 (unless you have
> many fewer toast tables than I suspect), so trying to optimize
> many-column cases isn't going to help.
The mean is 2.4 (give or take a little depending on whether you
include system tables).  I have no idea where the optimization
becomes worthwhile, but the assertion that most indexes probably
have a single column worried me.  I'm sure there are databases where
that is true (especially for those who insist on adding a
meaningless surrogate key column to every table), but there are many
where it isn't true.  I would guess that our average of 2.4 is
higher than most, though.
-Kevin


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Erik Rijkers"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations
Следующее
От: "Kevin Grittner"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?