Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM

From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>
To: sathiya psql <sathiya(dot)psql(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Date: 2008-03-25 09:08:23
Message-ID: 20080325090823.GA5431@depesz.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:20PM +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
> Any Idea on this ???

yes. dont use count(*).

if you want whole-table row count, use triggers to store the count.

it will be slow. regeardless of whether it's in ram or on hdd.

depesz

-- 
quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a
highly paid DBA.  here's my CV!" :)
http://www.depesz.com/ - blog dla ciebie (i moje CV)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2008-03-25 09:34:35
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Previous:From: sathiya psqlDate: 2008-03-25 08:42:53
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group