From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Alexander Scholz <alexander(dot)scholz1(at)freenet(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Indices for select count(*)? |
Date: | 2005-12-22 14:52:08 |
Message-ID: | 20051222145208.GS72143@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:54:08PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> MSSQL presumably has the entire table cached in RAM and postgres doesn't. Even
> if MSSQL can scan just the index (which postgres can't do) I would only expect
> a factor of 2-4x. Hm. Unless perhaps this table is extremely wide? How large
> are these records?
Back when I was using other databases more often, it wasn't uncommon to
see a 10x speed improvement on count(*) from using an index. This is an
area where PostgreSQL is seriously behind other databases. Of course
having vastly superior concurrency goes a long way towards offsetting
that in the real world, but it would be a Good Thing if we could get
some form of tuple visibility into indexes, as has been discussed in the
past.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michelle Konzack | 2005-12-22 14:52:36 | Re: Toolkit for creating editable grid |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-12-22 13:51:39 | Re: contrib extenstions |