From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mark Mielke" <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |
Date: | 2008-03-12 15:52:45 |
Message-ID: | 2e78013d0803120852h11a1022fw952900d925405294@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
>
> If you are talking about automatically doing this for every table - I
> have an objection that the performance impact seems unwarranted against
> the gain. We are still talking about every insert or update updating
> some counter table, with the only mitigating factor being that the
> trigger would be coded deeper into PostgreSQL theoretically making it
> cheaper?
>
No, I am not suggesting that. If you read proposal carefully, its one UPDATE
per transaction. With HOT, I am hoping that the counter table may be
completely cached in memory and won't bloat much.
Also, we can always have a GUC (like pgstats) to control the overhead.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-12 16:09:26 | Re: TODO-list on wiki (was: TODO update about SQLSTATE to PGconn) |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-03-12 15:48:26 | Re: Re: TODO-list on wiki (was: TODO update about SQLSTATE to PGconn) |