| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Date: | 2005-01-12 20:42:58 |
| Message-ID: | 41E58BD2.70604@tvi.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.
>
>cheers
>
>andrew
>
>
We seem to be in agreement. I'm looking for faster/smarter access to
data, not the monetary cost of doing so. Isn't it faster/smarter to
satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an
entire relation if it is possible?
Replying to the list as a whole:
If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it? As a
businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial
database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it
wouldn't be used. Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-01-12 20:59:07 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-12 20:41:38 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2005-01-12 20:47:53 | PANIC: right sibling's left-link doesn't match |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-12 20:41:38 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-01-12 20:59:07 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-12 20:41:38 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |