From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Charles H(dot) Woloszynski" <chw(at)clearmetrix(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Win2K Questions |
Date: | 2002-11-08 17:21:19 |
Message-ID: | 200211081721.gA8HLJX14258@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Charles H. Woloszynski wrote:
>
>
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> >Depends on usage patterns and how you build your application. There are a
> >couple of oddities with workarounds: count() and max() aren't very optimised
> >for example.
> >
> You can 'fix' the max() SNAFU with a new query of the form
> "select field from tbl limit 1 order by field desc" (not precise
> syntax, but the idea is correct)
>
> I call it a SNAFU since it I hate to have to change queries from
> something obvious to a more obscure format just to work around
> an optimizer issue.
>
> Not sure if there is an equivalent query to make count() work
> faster
The problem with optimizing COUNT() is that different backends have
different tuple views, meaning the count from one backend could be
different than from another backend. I can't see how to optimize that.
Does oracle do it? Maybe by looking their redo segements. We don't
have those because redo is stored in the main table.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-11-08 17:22:30 | Re: two table foreign keys |
Previous Message | Tara Piorkowski | 2002-11-08 17:19:16 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL v7.3b5 Packaged for Testing ... |