| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Frank D(dot) Engel, Jr(dot)" <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) | 
| Date: | 2005-01-14 18:38:39 | 
| Message-ID: | 20050114183835.GB1724@svana.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers | 
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
> This is probably stupid for some reason, but why not use a 64-bit 
> integer to track the number of records in the table? Increment when 
> adding records, decrement when deleting them... then COUNT(*) could 
> just return that in cases where a query is known to be looking at all 
> of the records?
Because there is no single value for count(*), if you're in a
transaction that has added records it will be bigger than in a
transaction that hasn't. How does your integer deal with this?
The usual solutions this involve locking, which is precisely what MVCC
is designed to avoid.
Hope this helps,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bo Lorentsen | 2005-01-14 18:39:16 | Re: OID Usage | 
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-01-14 18:38:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Frank D. Engel, Jr. | 2005-01-14 18:47:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) | 
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-01-14 18:38:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |