| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] speed up count(*) |
| Date: | 2021-10-21 20:23:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY1V96j-BGJjxn7-DYA=iTTK46G02swqP7_NANMt4ig7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:19 PM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> That is a grossly overstated position. When I have looked, it is often
> not that terribly far off. And for many use cases that I have heard of
> at least, quite adequate.
I don't think it's grossly overstated. If you need an approximation it
may be good enough, but I don't think it will often be exactly correct
- probably only if the table is small and rarely modified.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-10-21 20:28:59 | Re: parallelizing the archiver |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-10-21 20:19:56 | Re: parallelizing the archiver |