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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Date: 2011-10-21 19:55:37
Message-ID: 15516.1319226937@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Anyhow, here's the scoop. On my desktop machine running F14, running
> SELECT sum(1) FROM pgbench_accounts in a tight loop, 60 s worth of
> oprofile data:

> 176830 13.0801 postgres postgres ExecProject

Hm, that's weird. In both these cases, I'd have expected that
ExecProject would get optimized away thanks to selection of a physical
tlist for the scan node. Wonder if that got broken ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-21 20:05:53 Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-10-21 19:52:46 Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?