Re: count() in 9.2
| От | Steve Horn |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: count() in 9.2 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFLkBaWxAactu7vw8Crs4h=nXFy22-wZ6UL4tA8bCfpxt6pA9A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: count() in 9.2 (Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: count() in 9.2
|
| Список | pgsql-novice |
If our application could not do a count quickly there is no reason to show up for work. Our application provides counts of lists to customers who then use that information to purchase records of data from our lists. There are on average 80 columns that the user can apply "WHERE, AND, or OR" to narrow their count (list).
--
Steve Horn
We are using Microsoft Sql Server currently. It provides counts in an acceptable amount of time with 160 million+ rowcount tables with dozens of AND clauses applied.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:
Steve Horn wrote on 17.10.2012 17:00:I wonder what kind of application makes a slow count(*) on a table a show stopper.One of the reasons that my team could not take advantage of
PostgreSQL was due to the poor performance of count(*) aggregate
function.
I have been developing DB centric applications for over 20 years now and that never has been any issue.
And which DBMS are you currently using?
I don't know any transactional DBMS that will do count all the rows in a table *really* fast...
--
Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
Steve Horn
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: