| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results |
| Date: | 2005-11-26 23:13:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20108.1133046811@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> ...and for emphasis: this optimization of SeqScans is not possible with
>>> any other database system, so its a big win for PostgreSQL.
> Why is it spin to call it a big win?
I didn't say it wasn't a big win; it was the first part of the sentence
that bothered me. Without a lot more knowledge of the internals of the
commercial DBMSes than I think is public, you can't say whether this is
possible/useful/relevant for them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-26 23:16:05 | Re: SHOW ALL output too wide |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-11-26 22:38:23 | Windows installation notes |