Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM

From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>
To: sathiya psql <sathiya(dot)psql(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Date: 2008-03-25 09:08:23
Message-ID: 20080325090823.GA5431@depesz.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:20PM +0530, sathiya psql wrote:
> Any Idea on this ???

yes. dont use count(*).

if you want whole-table row count, use triggers to store the count.

it will be slow. regeardless of whether it's in ram or on hdd.

depesz

--
quicksil1er: "postgres is excellent, but like any DB it requires a
highly paid DBA. here's my CV!" :)
http://www.depesz.com/ - blog dla ciebie (i moje CV)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2008-03-25 09:34:35 Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Previous Message sathiya psql 2008-03-25 08:42:53 Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM