Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: "Frank D(dot) Engel, Jr(dot)" <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net>
Cc: Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-14 18:38:39
Message-ID: 20050114183835.GB1724@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
> This is probably stupid for some reason, but why not use a 64-bit
> integer to track the number of records in the table? Increment when
> adding records, decrement when deleting them... then COUNT(*) could
> just return that in cases where a query is known to be looking at all
> of the records?

Because there is no single value for count(*), if you're in a
transaction that has added records it will be bigger than in a
transaction that hasn't. How does your integer deal with this?

The usual solutions this involve locking, which is precisely what MVCC
is designed to avoid.

Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bo Lorentsen 2005-01-14 18:39:16 Re: OID Usage
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2005-01-14 18:38:16 Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank D. Engel, Jr. 2005-01-14 18:47:54 Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2005-01-14 18:38:16 Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)