From: | "Cestmir Hybl" <cestmirl(at)freeside(dot)sk> |
---|---|
To: | "hubert depesz lubaczewski" <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment |
Date: | 2005-10-07 10:14:29 |
Message-ID: | 9d5b01c5cb27$e7a1c970$131fc39e@stratos |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yes, I can possibly use triggers to maintanin counts of several fixed groups of records or total recordcount (but it's unpractical).
No, I can't speed-up evaluation of generic "count(*) where ()" queries this way.
My question was rather about general performance of count() queries in environment with infrequent updates.
Cestmir
----- Original Message -----
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski
To: Cestmir Hybl
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment
On 10/7/05, Cestmir Hybl <cestmirl(at)freeside(dot)sk> wrote:
Isn't it possible (and reasonable) for these environments to keep track of whether there is a transaction in progress with update to given table and if not, use an index scan (count(*) where) or cached value (count(*)) to perform this kind of query?
if i understand your problem correctly, then simple usage of triggers will do the job just fine.
hubert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-10-07 10:48:16 | Re: count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2005-10-07 09:54:23 | Re: count(*) using index scan in "query often, update rarely" environment |