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

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

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Date: 2011-10-28 12:16:58
Message-ID: 201110281216.p9SCGwX12307@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder how trustworthy the measure of the visibilitymap_test call site
> as a consumer of cycles really is.  I've frequently noticed that
> oprofile blames remarkably large fractions of the runtime on individual
> statements that appear to be quite trivial.  I'm not sure if that

Are these statements perhaps near kernel calls?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-10-28 12:51:18
Subject: Re: Add socket dir to pg_config..?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-10-28 12:14:00
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

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