From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer. |
Date: | 2005-08-15 01:01:59 |
Message-ID: | 20050815010159.GA27795@uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 07:27:38PM -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> My guess is that this is part of a larger query. There isn't really much
> you can do. If you want all 3.2M rows, then you have to wait for them to
> be pulled in.
To me, it looks like he'll get 88 rows, not 3.2M. Surely we must be able to
do something better than a full sequential scan in this case?
test=# create table foo ( bar char(4) );
CREATE TABLE
test=# insert into foo values ('0000');
INSERT 24773320 1
test=# insert into foo values ('0000');
INSERT 24773321 1
test=# insert into foo values ('1111');
INSERT 24773322 1
test=# select * from foo group by bar;
bar
------
1111
0000
(2 rows)
I considered doing some odd magic with generate_series() and subqueries with
LIMIT 1, but it was a bit too weird in the end :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-08-15 01:04:15 | Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-15 00:38:00 | Re: How many views is ok? |