Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
- Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, 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 18:13:31 -0500
- Message-id: <20108(dot)1133046811(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> ...and for emphasis: this optimization of SeqScans is not possible with
>>> any other database system, so its a big win for PostgreSQL.
> Why is it spin to call it a big win?
I didn't say it wasn't a big win; it was the first part of the sentence
that bothered me. Without a lot more knowledge of the internals of the
commercial DBMSes than I think is public, you can't say whether this is
possible/useful/relevant for them.
regards, tom lane
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index