From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at |
Subject: | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) |
Date: | 2001-11-19 13:35:04 |
Message-ID: | 3BF90A88.4070101@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tille, Andreas wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
>>>It is no specific query case. It is the speed of an index scan which
>>>goes like N if you do it with PostgreSQL and it goes like log N if
>>>you do not have to look back into the table like MS SQL server does.
>>>
>>I cannot see why you keep saying that. It is simply not true.
>>MS SQL shows a behavior of O(N), it is simply, that PostgreSQL
>>because of well described methodology takes longer per affected row.
>>The speed difference is linear, no matter how many rows
>>are affected.
>>
>I´m basing my assumption on the statement of my colleague. He
>told me that consequent index usage results in O(log N) behaviour.
>
Searching through index only vs. searching through index + looking up
each tuple in main
table can be better than linear, if the tuples are scattered throughout
main table.
Searching through index only is probably faster by roughly a factor of
2 * (size_of_heap_tuple/size_of_index_entry) in your case where you want
to count
about half of the rows in table.
----------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mlw | 2001-11-19 13:45:36 | postgresql.conf |
Previous Message | Tille, Andreas | 2001-11-19 13:27:58 | Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) |