On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It's the "lobotomized engines" that are the problem, IMO --- people
>> coming from databases like mysql tend to think count(*) just means
>> reading a table size counter that the engine has anyway.
> This is probably a much less common misconception than formerly, due
> to the rise of InnoDB and the falling-out-of-favor experienced by
> I think some pessimism removal is probably warranted. Yeah, somebody
> else might be faster than us on this test, but that's probably true of
> many tests. And on others we will be faster than them.
So, if Tom still wants to keep that paragraph and its warning, how
about we just fix the now-incorrect bit at the end? Maybe just tweak
"will be executed" to "will often be executed", or change "using a
sequential scan of the entire table." to "using a sequential scan of
the table, or an index-only scan of one of its indexes".
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2011-12-06 03:33:56|
|Subject: pg_stat_get_wal_senders documented|
|Previous:||From: Dmitriy Igrishin||Date: 2011-12-05 11:53:22|
|Subject: Clarification suggestion for 46.4 chapter.|