Re: select count...
От | Doug McNaught |
---|---|
Тема | Re: select count... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m3n169x93g.fsf@belphigor.mcnaught.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | select count... ("P. Dwayne Miller" <dmiller@espgroup.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"P. Dwayne Miller" <dmiller@espgroup.net> writes: > What's the fastest way to select the number of rows in a table? If I > use count(*) with no whereclause, it uses a seq_scan and takes 4 secs > (122k rows). With a where clause, it uses an index and returns in < 1 > sec. Selecting count(requestnumber), which is an indexed column, with > no where clause again takes 4 secs. This latter version, I thought, > would use the index. The values of requestnumber are very distributed. Exactly how would you expect to get a count of all the rows in the table (no WHERE clause) without a sequential scan? I don't see any problem with the above results. The only case in which COUNT(requestnumber) might use the index would be if there were a significant number of NULLs in that column, but you don't give any information on that. -Doug -- The rain man gave me two cures; he said jump right in, The first was Texas medicine--the second was just railroad gin, And like a fool I mixed them, and it strangled up my mind, Now people just get uglier, and I got no sense of time... --Dylan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: