From: | John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Date: | 2005-05-25 00:38:08 |
Message-ID: | 4293C8F0.7000909@arbash-meinel.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 04:35:14PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Pretty much. There has been discussion about allowing index-only
>> access to "frozen" tables, i.e. archive partitions. But it all sort
>> of hinges on someone implementing it and testing ....
>
>
> Is there any way to expose the planner estimate? For some purposes it's
> enough to just give a rough ballpark (e.g., a google-esque "results 1-10
> of approximately 10000000") so a user knows whether its worth even
> starting to page through.
>
> Mike Stone
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Well, you could always do:
EXPLAIN SELECT ...
And then parse out the rows= in the first line.
John
=:->
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-05-25 01:29:36 | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-05-25 00:20:39 | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |