Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
- Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
- Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:53:21 -0500
- Message-id: <3903(dot)1133024001(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> ...and for emphasis: this optimization of SeqScans is not possible with
>> any other database system, so its a big win for PostgreSQL.
> With any other db system? That's a big call. Why?
One could equally well spin it negatively, as "this optimization is not
needed with any other database" ...
regards, tom lane
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index