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

Re: Select performance vs. mssql

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 (view raw or flat)
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
=:->

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2005-05-25 01:29:36
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Previous:From: Michael StoneDate: 2005-05-25 00:20:39
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql

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