Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

From: Jeremy Harris <jgh(at)wizmail(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date: 2011-02-04 00:49:52
Message-ID: 4D4B4D30.2060007@wizmail.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On 2011-02-03 21:51, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> The cases I've seen in production typically involve "outgrowing" optimizer parameter settings: (e.g work_mem, effective_cache_size) as the application dataset gets bigger over time.

An argument in favour of the DBMS maintaining a running estimate of such things.
--
Jeremy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grant Johnson 2011-02-04 01:18:28 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-02-04 00:48:56 exposing COPY API

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grant Johnson 2011-02-04 01:18:28 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Mladen Gogala 2011-02-04 00:39:42 Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...