Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Adam Rich <adam.r@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "'Craig A. James'" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>,
	"'Guy Rouillier'" <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>,
	"'PostgreSQL Performance'" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <022d01c732cc$69f0e2a0$6400a8c0@dualcore>
References: <022d01c732cc$69f0e2a0$6400a8c0@dualcore>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:09:59 -0800
Message-Id: <1168225799.724.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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