Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob0Gji87mwrqPhNrFF3Z+FB1s5EVPeDAKZTaPk2Vr+GVA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Hmm. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range >>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts. It seems >>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple >>> inverses. > >> Seems reasonable. It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range >> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is. > > Yeah, I find that unlikely as well. But leaving Asserts in place would > tell us. OK. Should I go do that, or are you all over it? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: