Re: Why count(*) doest use index?
| От | Willy-Bas Loos |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why count(*) doest use index? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTik01yAcNWyZtuC6Pg6s9fCyT0SV+R1QCP2=si9=@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Why count(*) doest use index? (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Other well known dbms's do have this possibility, because they place deleted or updated records in a separate table or file (plz correct me if i'm wrong). But this has other, greater performance disadvantages. The count(*) problem is a bit of a publicity problem rather than a real performance problem (i've been told). People are aware of the fact that count(*) is faster in other dbms's, but "we" don't want superficial things like optimizing count(*) for publicity ruin other, more important things for us, performance-wise.
--
"Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it." -- George Bernard Shaw
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:46 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 03/05/11 2:05 PM, Allan Kamau wrote:indexes are not exact, due to possibly constant changes in the current number of visible elements in the relation.Is it possible in theory to efficiently perform count the primary or
unique indices underlying data structures, regardless whether there is
a WHERE clause detailing filtration base on values from such index or
not?
--Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
"Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it." -- George Bernard Shaw
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: