Re: *sigh*

Greg Stark wrote:

>Thomas Zehetbauer <thomasz(at)hostmaster(dot)org> writes:
>
>
>
>>Also will the BUG which causes postgresql to execute a sequential scan
>>when using min()/max()/count() ever be fixed? min()/max() can be
>>rewritten as SELECT $column ORDER BY $column ASC/DESC LIMIT 1 but this
>>should be done by the database, NOT by the user!
>>
>>

I would add that this is not a bug as much as a feature request. count()
works. It may not be as feature
filled as we would like (e.g; it won't use an index) but it does work.

>Nobody is currently working on this or planning to work on this soon. So no,
>at least currently it appears this issue will not be changed. Postgresql is
>open source and this is the hackers mailing list. Feel free to contribute a
>patch.
>
>
>
Personally I think there are greater things that need to be patched
versus count(). As you can implement
procedures on your own to deliver faster counts.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org