From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)venux(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Full text indexing preformance! (long) |
Date: | 2000-05-31 01:53:01 |
Message-ID: | 003801bfcaa2$fb8d08e0$0300000a@doot.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Well, of course the whole *point* of LIMIT is that it stops short of
> > scanning the whole query result. So I'm afraid you're kind of stuck
> > as far as the performance goes: you can't get a count() answer without
> > scanning the whole query.
Right, that's what I thought.
> > I'm a little curious though: what is the typical count() result from
> > your queries? The EXPLAIN outputs you show indicate that the planner
> > is only expecting about one row out now, but I have no idea how close
> > that is to the mark. If it were really right, then there'd be no
> > difference in the performance of LIMIT and full queries, so I guess
> > it's not right; but how far off is it?
Well, count does always return 1 row, though what's in that one row is as
varying as 0 to the number of records in the applicants database (about
11,000)..
Anyway, I thank you and appreciate your input..
-Mitch
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-31 02:04:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: aliases break my query |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-05-31 01:52:38 | RE: Using BOOL in indexes |