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

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-12 20:42:58
Message-ID: 41E58BD2.70604@tvi.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-announcepgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.
>
>cheers
>
>andrew
>  
>
We seem to be in agreement.  I'm looking for faster/smarter access to 
data, not the monetary cost of doing so.  Isn't it faster/smarter to 
satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an 
entire relation if it is possible?

Replying to the list as a whole:

If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it?  As a 
businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial 
database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it 
wouldn't be used.  Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-announce by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2005-01-12 20:59:07
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-12 20:41:38
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim ButtafuocoDate: 2005-01-12 20:47:53
Subject: PANIC: right sibling's left-link doesn't match
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-12 20:41:38
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2005-01-12 20:59:07
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-12 20:41:38
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

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