Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized table layout)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized table layout)
Date: 2003-10-04 21:15:24
Message-ID: 22013.1065302124@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
> effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,

I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
the performance issues.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2003-10-04 21:17:53 Re: Index/Function organized table layout
Previous Message James Rogers 2003-10-04 21:15:12 Uses for Index/Function organizing

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2003-10-04 23:33:46 Re: count(*) slow on large tables
Previous Message James Rogers 2003-10-04 21:15:12 Uses for Index/Function organizing