| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Good News re count(*) in 8.1 |
| Date: | 2006-02-23 03:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | 87irr6zq7j.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> There have been several times that I have run a SELECT COUNT(*) on an entire
> table on all central machines. On identical hardware, with identical data,
> and equivalent query loads, the PostgreSQL databases have responded with a
> count in 50% to 70% of the time of the commercial product, in spite of the
> fact that the commercial product does a scan of a non-clustered index while
> PostgreSQL scans the data pages.
I take it these are fairly narrow rows? The big benefit of index-only scans
come in when you're scanning extremely wide tables, often counting rows
matching some indexed criteria.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-02-23 10:21:26 | Re: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-02-23 02:52:11 | Re: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres? |