| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized |
| Date: | 2003-10-05 04:20:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200310050420.h954KWT12351@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
> > effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
>
> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
> the performance issues.
What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xid to the
index tuples?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 04:40:37 | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 03:57:33 | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 06:08:31 | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized table layout) |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-10-04 23:33:46 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |