Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTiknZi97dDwm7sHqy0EL7tpNEP9sY5uPV6AN+q=u@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 6:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Whether or not it's bad application design, it's ubiquitous, and we
>> should make it work as best we can, IMNSHO. This often generates
>> complaints about Postgres, and if we really plan for world domination
>> this needs to be part of it.
>
> There are many other things to fix first. One of them would be optimizer
> decisions when a temp table is involved.

It would be pretty hard to make autoanalyze work on such tables
without removing some of the performance benefits of having such
tables in the first place - namely, the local buffer manager.  But you
could ANALYZE them by hand.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Maciek Sakrejda
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: About pg_stat_activity
Следующее
От: Greg Smith
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: About pg_stat_activity