Re: Really really slow select count(*)

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: felix <crucialfelix(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Really really slow select count(*)
Date: 2011-02-07 23:55:56
Message-ID: 4D50868C.1020209@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 02/08/2011 03:05 AM, Greg Smith wrote:

> Accordingly I would expect any serious
> attempt to add some auto-reduction behavior to be beset with argument,
> and I'd never consider writing such a thing as a result. Too many
> non-controversial things I could work on instead.

Yep. I expressed my own doubts in the post I suggested that in.

If Pg did auto-correct down, it'd be necessary to scream about it
angrily and continuously, not just once during startup. Given that it's
clear many people never even look at the logs ("what logs? where are
they?") I think Pg would also have to send notices to the client.
Problem is, many clients don't process notices/warnings, so particularly
slack admins won't see that either.

I'm not particularly excited about the idea.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sylvain Rabot 2011-02-08 00:14:58 Indexes with condition using immutable functions applied to column not used
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2011-02-07 23:49:27 Re: Really really slow select count(*)