| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Improving count(*) |
| Date: | 2005-11-21 23:33:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20051121233349.GR19279@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:08:03AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The trouble is, people moan and constantly. Perhaps we should stick to
> our guns and say, why do you care? From here, I think we should say,
> "show me an application package that needs this so badly we'll change
> PostgreSQL just for them". Prove it and we'll do it. Kinda polite in the
> TODO, but I think we should put something in there that says "things we
> haven't yet had any good reason to improve".
FWIW, this is one of Tom Kyte's (of http://asktom.oracle.com fame) big
complaints: if you have a query where count(*) isn't nearly instant then
you probably don't need an exact count in the first place and should be
happy enough with an estimate. He constantly cites Google ('Result 1-10
of about 38,923') as an example of this.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-21 23:48:21 | Re: Improving count(*) |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-21 23:24:39 | Re: [ADMIN] ERROR: could not read block |