Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-15 03:42:05
Message-ID: 87y8evtl2q.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers


"Frank D. Engel, Jr." <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net> writes:

> Yep, that could cause problems. Okay, now I'm joining the program.
>
> The only thing I can see that would fix this
> ...

There are well understood mechanisms to fix this. It's a "SMOP" or "simple
matter of programming". What you would do is insert into a summary table a
record that indicates how many records you've inserted into the master table.
Periodically you have some daemon collect up those records and replace them
with a single record.

But this can be done already by hand and it's not clear having the database do
it automatically is necessarily a good idea. It would impose a cost on every
insert when most of the time it wouldn't be useful.

Moreover this is just a special case of a general problem called "materialized
views". If it were added to the database it would probably be more worthwhile
implementing a more general feature that could handle other aggregate
functions besides count(*) as well as other types of queries besides simple
unqualified aggregates.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John DeSoi 2005-01-15 04:43:45 Re: speaks psql unicode?
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2005-01-15 03:15:49 Re: Problems with a trigger

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-01-15 04:26:07 Re: sparse (static analyzer) report
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2005-01-15 03:15:03 Re: PostgreSQL Specification