From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
Date: | 2005-01-15 03:42:05 |
Message-ID: | 87y8evtl2q.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Frank D. Engel, Jr." <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net> writes:
> Yep, that could cause problems. Okay, now I'm joining the program.
>
> The only thing I can see that would fix this
> ...
There are well understood mechanisms to fix this. It's a "SMOP" or "simple
matter of programming". What you would do is insert into a summary table a
record that indicates how many records you've inserted into the master table.
Periodically you have some daemon collect up those records and replace them
with a single record.
But this can be done already by hand and it's not clear having the database do
it automatically is necessarily a good idea. It would impose a cost on every
insert when most of the time it wouldn't be useful.
Moreover this is just a special case of a general problem called "materialized
views". If it were added to the database it would probably be more worthwhile
implementing a more general feature that could handle other aggregate
functions besides count(*) as well as other types of queries besides simple
unqualified aggregates.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John DeSoi | 2005-01-15 04:43:45 | Re: speaks psql unicode? |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-15 03:15:49 | Re: Problems with a trigger |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-01-15 04:26:07 | Re: sparse (static analyzer) report |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-01-15 03:15:03 | Re: PostgreSQL Specification |