Re: constant time count(*) ?

From: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
To: "Mark Harrison" <mh(at)pixar(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: constant time count(*) ?
Date: 2003-10-15 18:28:44
Message-ID: D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8294CE208@voyager.corporate.connx.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

This should definitely be a FAQ.

The semantics of MVCC (multi-version concurrency control) means that you
can't just store a number somewhere in the header of the table like some
other database systems do.

Try a count(*) on Oracle and you will see similar behavior. They use
MVCC also.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Harrison [mailto:mh(at)pixar(dot)com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:00 AM
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [GENERAL] constant time count(*) ?
>
>
> We're looking into moving some data from mysql to postgresql,
> and notice that count(*) does not seem to be a constant-time
> function as it seems to be in mysql.
>
> planb=# explain select count(*) from assets;
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=22.50..22.50 rows=1 width=0)
> -> Seq Scan on assets (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000
> width=0) (2 rows)
>
> Is there a way to optimize count(*) such that it does not
> have to do a sequential scan? We use this on some big tables
> and it is slowing down processing quite a lot.
>
> Thanks!
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Harrison
> Pixar Animation Studios
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to
> majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-10-15 18:44:09 Re: constant time count(*) ?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-10-15 18:25:39 Re: constant time count(*) ?