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: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 16:53:21
Message-ID: 3903.1133024001@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> ...and for emphasis: this optimization of SeqScans is not possible with
>> any other database system, so its a big win for PostgreSQL.

> With any other db system?  That's a big call.  Why?

One could equally well spin it negatively, as "this optimization is not
needed with any other database" ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-11-26 17:57:01
Subject: Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
Previous:From: Dennis BjorklundDate: 2005-11-26 16:26:35
Subject: Re: SHOW ALL output too wide

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