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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 19:27:36
Message-ID: 28283.1319830056@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts. It seems
>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
>> inverses.

> Seems reasonable.  It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.

Yeah, I find that unlikely as well.  But leaving Asserts in place would
tell us.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-10-28 19:30:32
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-28 19:02:22
Subject: Re: ecpg-related build failure with make 3.82

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