Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: count(*) performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Date: 2006-03-27 23:13:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> It is fairly easy to implement, however it has been discussed before and 
> decided that it wasn't necessary.  What the system cares about is how 
> long it's been since the last vacuum in terms of XIDs not time.

I think Alvaro is intending to do the latter (store per-table vacuum xid
info) for 8.2.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mikael CarneholmDate: 2006-03-27 23:17:43
Subject: Re: count(*) performance
Previous:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2006-03-27 22:43:02
Subject: Re: count(*) performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group