Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: 2004-12-20 19:40:59
Message-ID: 20041220134059.215cf049.frank@wiles.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:37 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org> writes:
> > I've also seen a huge difference between select count(*) and
> > select count(1) in older versions,
>
> That must have been before my time, ie, pre-6.4 or so. There is
> certainly zero difference now.

Yeah now that I think about it that sounds about the right time
frame I last benchmarked it.

---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message sarlav kumar 2004-12-20 22:25:26 slony replication
Previous Message Kretschmer Andreas 2004-12-20 18:27:29 Re: Postgres version change - pg_dump