Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
Date: 2005-11-26 16:53:21
Message-ID: 3903.1133024001@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> ...and for emphasis: this optimization of SeqScans is not possible with
>> any other database system, so its a big win for PostgreSQL.

> With any other db system? That's a big call. Why?

One could equally well spin it negatively, as "this optimization is not
needed with any other database" ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-26 17:57:01 Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2005-11-26 16:26:35 Re: SHOW ALL output too wide