From: | AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: how to get the total number of records in report |
Date: | 2010-10-19 07:18:45 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=XpukJfu8Pd9dR9KN0S0Q7NpO-u7aOFe75bjSo@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Not actualy. I used pagination with limit clause in details query and I need
the total number of records in the detail query.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:16 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > At present for reporting I use following types of query:
> > select crm.*, crm_cnt.cnt
> > from crm,
> > (select count(*) as cnt from crm) crm_cnt;
> > Here count query is used to find the total number of records.
> > Same FROM clause is copied in both the part of the query.
> > Is there any other good alternative way to get this similar value?
>
> Well, it looks like you're currently executing two sequential scans
> over the "crm" table. And you're including the total row-count as a
> separate column in every row you get back, although you really only
> need this piece of information once.
>
> Since you're fetching all of the "crm" table anyway, why not get rid
> of the COUNT(*) entirely and just keep a count on the client-side of
> the total number of rows you've fetched?
>
> Josh
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Carey | 2010-10-19 09:00:11 | Re: HashJoin order, hash the large or small table? Postgres likes to hash the big one, why? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-19 03:43:45 | Re: HashJoin order, hash the large or small table? Postgres likes to hash the big one, why? |