Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
Cc: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: 2004-12-18 04:37:37
Message-ID: 27633.1103344657@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2004-12-18 04:39:18 Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Previous Message Christopher Browne 2004-12-18 02:55:27 Re: Which is more efficient?