Re: Huge Data

From: "Matthew Lunnon" <mlunnon(at)rwa-net(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Sezai YILMAZ" <sezai(dot)yilmaz(at)pro-g(dot)com(dot)tr>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Huge Data
Date: 2004-01-14 12:52:31
Message-ID: 003f01c3da9d$46419690$8e8bbd3e@rwanet.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Have you run 'vacuum analyze log;'? Also I believe that in Oracle count(1) used to be quicker than count(*).
Matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: Sezai YILMAZ
To: Richard Huxton
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Huge Data

Richard Huxton wrote:

>PG uses MVCC to manage concurrency. A downside of this is that to verify the
>exact number of rows in a table you have to visit them all.
>
>There's plenty on this in the archives, and probably the FAQ too.
>
>What are you using the count() for?
>
>
>

select logid, agentid, logbody from log where logid=3000000;

this query also returns after about 120 seconds. The table log has about
7 million records, and logid is the primary key of log table. What about
that? Why is it too slow?

-sezai

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2004-01-14 13:02:45 Re: Huge Data
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2004-01-14 12:42:41 Re: Huge Data