Re: Slow counting still true?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Edson Richter
Тема Re: Slow counting still true?
Дата
Msg-id BLU0-SMTP155D1430AA7C305344DC23BCF950@phx.gbl
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Slow counting still true?  (Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Slow counting still true?  (Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.com>)
Re: Slow counting still true?  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-general
Em 17/09/2012 06:13, Chris Travers escreveu:


On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Thomas Guettler <hv@tbz-pariv.de> wrote:
Release 9.2 should increase count(*) performance. Is this wiki page still valid?

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Counting

Please update the content.

As I understand it, covering indexes don't currently help with count(*) because indexes can't be traversed in physical order, so it is a matter of trading random disk I/O for a much larger amount of sequential disk I/O.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

I'm just a little bit curious, and since count(*) affects a lot my applications (every web system has a paginating feature that depends on count(*) to calculate number of pages without loading everything), I'm also interested in this topic.

The wiki page in question has been updated today, and I see the alert in top of page "Note that the following article only applies to versions of PostgreSQL prior to 9.2. Index-only scans are now implemented."

So seems that traversing indexes for count(*) would be faster on 9.2, right?

AFAIK, for count(*) doesn't matter the order data is stored - just need to load index leaf pages and count from there, right?


Edson

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alex Lai
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Planner forces seq scan when select without quoting its values
Следующее
От: Christian Hammers
Дата:
Сообщение: Why is the wrong index used? (with "gist" index)