Re: slow plan for min/max

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: Pailloncy Jean-Gérard <pailloncy(at)ifrance(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slow plan for min/max
Date: 2003-09-08 18:49:12
Message-ID: 1063046951.9051.68.camel@tokyo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 11:56, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Basically, Postgresql uses an MVCC locking system that makes massively
> parallel operation possible, but costs in certain areas, and one of those
> areas is aggregate performance over large sets. MVCC makes it very hard
> to optimize all but the simplest of aggregates, and even those
> optimzations which are possible would wind up being quite ugly at the
> parser level.

As was pointed out in a thread a couple days ago, MIN/MAX() optimization
has absolutely nothing to do with MVCC. It does, however, make
optimizing COUNT() more difficult.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2003-09-08 19:32:16 Re: slow plan for min/max
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2003-09-08 15:56:28 Re: slow plan for min/max