Re: count * performance issue
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: count * performance issue |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13345.1204940295@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: count * performance issue (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: count * performance issue
Re: count * performance issue |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > Tom, >>> Count() on Oracle and MySQL is almost instantaneous, even for very >>> large tables. So why can't Postgres do what they do? >> >> AFAIK the above claim is false for Oracle. They have the same >> transactional issues we do. > Nope. Oracle's MVCC is implemented through rollback segments, rather than > non-overwriting the way ours is. So Oracle can just do a count(*) on the > index, then check the rollback segment for any concurrent > update/delete/insert activity and adjust the count. This sucks if there's > a *lot* of concurrent activity, but in the usual case it's pretty fast. Well, scanning an index to get a count might be significantly faster than scanning the main table, but it's hardly "instantaneous". It's still going to take time proportional to the table size. Unless they keep a central counter of the number of index entries; which would have all the same serialization penalties we've talked about before... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: