Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility

From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility
Date: 2008-01-09 20:09:36
Message-ID: 20080109210936.0d82bdf7@webthatworks.it
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:

> The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.

...

thanks.

> In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
> regardless of other transactions. Which way do you prefer?

Considering the relative value of count my interest was for something
that is even less precise than the "usual" count but performs better.
I'm not proposing to turn Postgres into MySQL.

--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kris Jurka 2008-01-09 20:16:18 Re: Prepared Statements
Previous Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2008-01-09 20:08:09 Re: Experiences with extensibility