Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If count(*) could cause the index-only scan to happen in physical
>> order of the index, rather than logical order, that might be a big
>> win. Both for all in memory and for not-all-in-memory.

> That's an interesting point. I sort of assumed that would only help
> for not-all-in-memory, but maybe not. The trouble is that I think
> there are some problematic concurrency issues there.

Yeah. We managed to make physical-order scanning work for VACUUM
because it's okay if VACUUM sometimes sees the same index tuple twice;
it'll just make the same decision about (not) deleting it. That will
not fly for regular querying.

regards, tom lane