"Frank D. Engel, Jr." <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net> writes:
> Yep, that could cause problems. Okay, now I'm joining the program.
> The only thing I can see that would fix this
There are well understood mechanisms to fix this. It's a "SMOP" or "simple
matter of programming". What you would do is insert into a summary table a
record that indicates how many records you've inserted into the master table.
Periodically you have some daemon collect up those records and replace them
with a single record.
But this can be done already by hand and it's not clear having the database do
it automatically is necessarily a good idea. It would impose a cost on every
insert when most of the time it wouldn't be useful.
Moreover this is just a special case of a general problem called "materialized
views". If it were added to the database it would probably be more worthwhile
implementing a more general feature that could handle other aggregate
functions besides count(*) as well as other types of queries besides simple
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-01-15 04:26:07|
|Subject: Re: sparse (static analyzer) report|
|Previous:||From: Rod Taylor||Date: 2005-01-15 03:15:03|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Specification|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: John DeSoi||Date: 2005-01-15 04:43:45|
|Subject: Re: speaks psql unicode?|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2005-01-15 03:15:49|
|Subject: Re: Problems with a trigger|