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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Дата
Msg-id CA+Tgmob0Gji87mwrqPhNrFF3Z+FB1s5EVPeDAKZTaPk2Vr+GVA@mail.gmail.com
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?
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

OK.  Should I go do that, or are you all over it?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: fstat vs. lseek