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

Re: Thanks, naming conventions, and count()

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Casey Lyon <casey(at)earthcars(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thanks, naming conventions, and count()
Date: 2001-04-30 03:43:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> It certainly works quickly for smaller tables, however the 21.7 million
> record table I ran this on takes a touch longer as shown here:
> database=# explain select count(*) from table;
> Aggregate  (cost=478056.20..478056.20 rows=1 width=0)
>    ->  Seq Scan on table  (cost=0.00..423737.76 rows=21727376 width=0)
> However I noted explain provides rows as part of it's data; from what
> I've seen this loses precision over time or with large data imports,
> though; at least until the table is vacuumed again.

I guess I was saying that an index scan could take longer because it has
to walk the btree.  However it only has one column of the table, so it
may be faster.  I never measured the two, but the heap access needed for
the index scan currently is a performance killer.  Sequential is faster
than all those random heap lookups from the index.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-04-30 03:46:38
Subject: Re: Thanks, naming conventions, and count()
Previous:From: Serguei MokhovDate: 2001-04-30 03:42:29
Subject: Re: Thanks, naming conventions, and count()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group