On 2/1/2011 5:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we want a TODO about optimizing COUNT(*) to avoid aggregate processing overhead?
Definitely not. In my opinion, and I've seen more than a few database designs, having count(*) is almost always an error. If I am counting a large table like the one below, waiting for 30 seconds more is not going to make much of a difference. To paraphrase Kenny Rogers, it will be time enough for counting when the application is done.
Timing is on. news=> select count(*) from moreover_documents_y2011m01; count ---------- 20350907 (1 row) Time: 124142.437 ms news=> -- Mladen Gogala Sr. Oracle DBA 1500 Broadway New York, NY 10036 (212) 329-5251 http://www.vmsinfo.com The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
