From: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance of count(*) |
Date: | 2007-03-22 18:21:21 |
Message-ID: | 4602C921.3070303@modgraph-usa.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Steve Atkins wrote:
> As long as you're ordering by some row in the table then you can do that in
> straight SQL.
>
> select a, b, ts from foo where (stuff) and foo > X order by foo limit 10
>
> Then, record the last value of foo you read, and plug it in as X the next
> time around.
We've been over this before in this forum: It doesn't work as advertised. Look for postings by me regarding the fact that there is no way to tell the optimizer the cost of executing a function. There's one, for example, on Oct 18, 2006.
> I think the problem is more that most web developers aren't very good
> at using the database, and tend to fall back on simplistic, wrong,
> approaches
> to displaying the data. There's a lot of monkey-see, monkey-do in web
> UI design too, which doesn't help.
Thanks, I'm sure your thoughtful comments will help me solve my problem. Somehow. ;-)
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri | 2007-03-22 18:24:38 | Re: Parallel Vacuum |
Previous Message | David Brain | 2007-03-22 18:20:44 | Re: Potential memory usage issue [resolved] |