Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
От | Grant Johnson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D4B53E4.6010701@amadensor.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On PostgreSQL, the difference in no hints and hints for that one query with skewed data is that the query finishes a little faster. On some others, which shall remain nameless, it is the difference between finishing in seconds or days, or maybe never. Hints can be useful, but I can also see why they are not a top priority. They are rarely needed, and only when working around a bug. If you want them so badly, you have the source, write a contrib module (can you do that on Oracle or MSSQL?) If I have a choice between the developers spending time on implementing hints, and spending time on improving the optimiser, I'll take the optimiser. Tom Kyte agrees: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:8912905298920 http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2006/08/words-of-wisdom.html Oracle can be faster on count queries, but that is the only case I have seen. Generally on most other queries, especially when it involves complex joins, or indexes on text fields, PostgreSQL is faster on the same hardware.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: