Re: Various performance questions

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:52:27PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Dror Matalon wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:04:49AM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>Most of the time involves:
> >>
> >>a) Reading each page of the table, and
> >>b) Figuring out which records on those pages are still "live."
> >
> >
> >The table has been VACUUM ANALYZED so that there are no "dead" records.
> >It's still not clear why select count() would be slower than select with
> >a "where" clause.
>
> Do a vacuum verbose full and then everything should be within small range
> of each other.
>

I did vaccum full verbose and the results are the same as before, 55
seconds for count(*) and 26 seconds for count(*) where channel < 5000.

> Also in the where clause, does explicitly typecasting helps?
>
> Like 'where channel<5000::int2;'

It makes no difference.

>
> HTH
>
> Shridhar
>

--
Dror Matalon
Zapatec Inc
1700 MLK Way
Berkeley, CA 94709
http://www.zapatec.com