From: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Adam Rich <adam.r@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: 'Craig A. James' <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
Cc: 'Guy Rouillier' <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>
Cc: 'PostgreSQL Performance' <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:09:59 -0800
Message-ID: <1168225799.724.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <022d01c732cc$69f0e2a0$6400a8c0@dualcore>
References: <022d01c732cc$69f0e2a0$6400a8c0@dualcore>
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 20:26 -0600, Adam Rich wrote:
> I'm using 8.2 and using order by & limit is still faster than MAX()
> even though MAX() now seems to rewrite to an almost identical plan
> internally.
Gonna need you to back that up :) Can we get an explain analyze?
> Count(*) still seems to use a full table scan rather than an index scan.
>
There is a TODO out there to help this. Don't know if it will get done.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, adam.r@sbcglobal.net, cjames@modgraph-usa.com, guyr-ml1@burntmail.com
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
In-Reply-To: <1168225799.724.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox