Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
От | Jonah H. Harris |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 41E58BD2.70604@tvi.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote: >Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue. > >cheers > >andrew > > We seem to be in agreement. I'm looking for faster/smarter access to data, not the monetary cost of doing so. Isn't it faster/smarter to satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an entire relation if it is possible? Replying to the list as a whole: If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it? As a businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be used. Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: