Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-17 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I didn't think pgstattuple had proper visibility checks. It doesn't, see followup discussion. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
I didn't think pgstattuple had proper visibility checks. --- Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: > This patch adds a note to the documentation describing why the > performance of min() and max() is slow when applied to the entire ta

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-06 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
For a more accurate view of the time used, use the \timing switch in psql. That leaves out the overhead for forking and loading psql, connecting to the database and such things. I think, that it would be even nicer if postgresql automatically choose to replace the count(*)-with-no-where with som

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-06 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
But pgstattuple does do a sequential scan of the table. You avoid a lot of the executor's tuple-pushing and plan-node-traversing machinery that way, but the I/O requirement is going to be exactly the same. I have tried it more often so that I can be sure that everything is in the cache. I t

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-02 Thread Neil Conway
On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 13:04, Tom Lane wrote: > I think your test case is small enough that the whole table is resident > in memory, so this measurement only accounts for CPU time per tuple and > not any I/O. Given the small size of pgstattuple's per-tuple loop, the > speed differential is not too

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In special cases there can be another way to avoid seq scans: > [ use pgstattuple() ] But pgstattuple does do a sequential scan of the table. You avoid a lot of the executor's tuple-pushing and plan-node-traversing machinery t

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-02 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Neil Conway wrote: On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 03:55, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: If people want to count ALL rows of a table. The contrib stuff is pretty useful. It seems to be transaction safe. Interesting -- I didn't know about the contrib stuff. I'll update the docs patch. Cheers, Neil

Re: [HACKERS] COUNT and Performance ...

2003-02-02 Thread Neil Conway
On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 03:55, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: > If people want to count ALL rows of a table. The contrib stuff is pretty > useful. It seems to be transaction safe. Interesting -- I didn't know about the contrib stuff. I'll update the docs patch. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL P