Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM

From: "sathiya psql" <sathiya(dot)psql(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "jose javier parra sanchez" <jojapasa(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Date: 2008-03-25 08:42:53
Message-ID: f966c2ee0803250142hae53ef4mfee4487d1fd052a2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM, jose javier parra sanchez <
jojapasa(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> It's been said zillions of times on the maillist. Using a select
> count(*) in postgres is slow, and probably will be slow for a long
> time. So that function is not a good way to measure perfomance.
>
Yes, but if the data is in HDD then we can say this...

but now the data is in RAM

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2008-03-25 09:08:23 Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Previous Message sathiya psql 2008-03-25 08:35:20 postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM