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

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: 2005-11-26 23:13:31
Message-ID: 20108.1133046811@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-26 23:16:05
Subject: Re: SHOW ALL output too wide
Previous:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2005-11-26 22:38:23
Subject: Windows installation notes

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