Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3BF90A88.4070101@tm.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) ("Tille, Andreas" <TilleA@rki.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tille, Andreas wrote: >On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: > >>>It is no specific query case. It is the speed of an index scan which >>>goes like N if you do it with PostgreSQL and it goes like log N if >>>you do not have to look back into the table like MS SQL server does. >>> >>I cannot see why you keep saying that. It is simply not true. >>MS SQL shows a behavior of O(N), it is simply, that PostgreSQL >>because of well described methodology takes longer per affected row. >>The speed difference is linear, no matter how many rows >>are affected. >> >I´m basing my assumption on the statement of my colleague. He >told me that consequent index usage results in O(log N) behaviour. > Searching through index only vs. searching through index + looking up each tuple in main table can be better than linear, if the tuples are scattered throughout main table. Searching through index only is probably faster by roughly a factor of 2 * (size_of_heap_tuple/size_of_index_entry) in your case where you want to count about half of the rows in table. ---------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: