Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > On 02/01/2011 05:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> At this point what we've got is 25% of the runtime in nodeAgg.c overhead,
> >>> and it's difficult to see how to get any real improvement without tackling
> >>> that.
> >> Do we want a TODO about optimizing COUNT(*) to avoid aggregate
> >> processing overhead?
> > Whether or not it's bad application design, it's ubiquitous, and we
> > should make it work as best we can, IMNSHO. This often generates
> > complaints about Postgres, and if we really plan for world domination
> > this needs to be part of it.
> I don't think that saving ~25% on COUNT(*) runtime will help that at all.
> The people who complain about it expect it to be instantaneous.
> If this sort of hack were free, I'd be all for doing it anyway; but I'm
> concerned that adding tests to enable a fast path will slow down every
> other aggregate, or else duplicate a lot of code that we'll then have to
OK, thank you.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jens Wilke||Date: 2011-02-02 16:03:42|
|Subject: monitoring querys Re: About pg_stat_activity|
|Previous:||From: Cesar Arrieta||Date: 2011-02-02 15:21:47|
|Subject: About pg_stat_activity|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2011-02-02 16:06:03|
|Subject: Where are we on SQl-MED?|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-02-02 15:52:34|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|