| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |
| Date: | 2003-10-05 19:11:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1065381109.23288.196.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> And for those GUIs, wouldn't it be 97% as good to run an ANALYZE and give the
> approximate record counts for large tables?
Interfaces which run a COUNT(*) like that are broken by design. They
fail to consider the table may really be a view which of course could
not be cached with results like that and may take days to load a full
result set (we had some pretty large views in an old billing system).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 19:41:15 | Re: PQfnumber and quoted identifiers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 18:59:08 | Re: Open 7.4 items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-10-05 21:57:42 | Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-10-05 18:57:21 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |