| From: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Date: | 2005-01-14 22:58:49 |
| Message-ID: | BE0DAAC9.4040%wespvp@syntegra.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 1/14/05 12:47 PM, "Frank D. Engel, Jr." <fde101(at)fjrhome(dot)net> wrote:
> It's probably too messy to be worthwhile this
> way, though. More trouble than it would be worth.
It would be rather useful if there was a way to get a reasonably accurate
count (better than analyze provides) in a very short period. When you've
got a relatively wide table that has hundreds of millions to over a billion
rows, and you need to report on how many rows in the table, that can take a
long time.
Wes
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bo Lorentsen | 2005-01-14 23:01:18 | Re: OID Usage |
| Previous Message | J. Greenlees | 2005-01-14 22:40:53 | Re: ntfs for windows port rc5-2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Wong | 2005-01-14 23:53:09 | Re: sparse (static analyzer) report |
| Previous Message | Benjamin Arai | 2005-01-14 22:51:05 | PostgreSQL Specification |