Re: Select count(*), the sequel

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Select count(*), the sequel
Date: 2010-10-27 21:49:42
Message-ID: 29056.1288216182@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> Just keeping the hope alive for faster compression.

Is there any evidence that that's something we should worry about?
I can't recall ever having seen a code profile that shows the
pg_lzcompress.c code high enough to look like a bottleneck compared
to other query costs.

Now, the benefits of 2X or 3X space savings would be pretty obvious,
but I've seen no evidence that we could easily achieve that either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jon Nelson 2010-10-27 22:02:43 Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-27 21:45:53 Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans