Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What this test case proves is that btree's overhead per index
>> tuple touched is significantly more than the cost of the fastest path
>> through HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC, which I don't find surprising
>> considering how much sweat has been expended on that code path over the
>> years.

> I think HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC is probably being skipped anyway in
> this case, since all the heap pages should be PD_ALL_VISIBLE.

Proves my point ;-) ... you're comparing a code path that's been beat on
for *years* with one that just got written.

regards, tom lane