Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about Greg Stark's idea of combining Simon's idea of storing
> > per-heap-block xmin/xmax with using that information in an index scan?
> > ISTM that's the best of everything that's been presented: it allows for
> > faster index scans without adding a lot of visibility overhead to the
> > index heap, and it also allows VACUUM to hit only pages that need
> > vacuuming. Presumably this could also be used as the on-disk backing for
> > the FSM, or it could potentially replace the FSM.
>
> This should be a big win all around, especially now since in memory
> bitmaps make it more likely that some classes of queries will be pure
> index. I still think it would be useful to have a estimated_count()
> which switches to whatever method is needed to get a reasonably
> accurate count quickly (stats when there are no wheres we can't
> predict, sampling otherwise if the involved tables are large, and a
> normal count in other cases.)
Added to TODO:
* Add estimated_count(*) to return an estimate of COUNT(*)
This would use the planner ANALYZE statistatics to return an estimated
count.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
