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 19:30:32
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob0Gji87mwrqPhNrFF3Z+FB1s5EVPeDAKZTaPk2Vr+GVA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 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 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Hmm.  I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
>>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts.  It seems
>>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
>>> inverses.
>
>> Seems reasonable.  It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
>> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.
>
> 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?

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2011-10-28 19:33:16
Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-28 19:27:36
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

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