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

Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Date: 2011-10-28 21:07:24
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ9nHJw3XkKFG2+vt1e3udPYfBiu+y=PbLH1v5RhswVEA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yeah, I find that unlikely as well.  But leaving Asserts in place would
>>> tell us.
>
>> OK.  Should I go do that, or are you all over it?
>
> Go for it.

OK, done.  Any other thoughts on the rest of what I wrote?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2011-10-28 21:40:16
Subject: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-28 21:00:25
Subject: Re: CASE w/out ELSE hides typmod (was: How define a view that use a case operator for geometry field)

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