Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D292E30B0
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 13:29:45 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 73525-01 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 13:29:30 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C8D2E304C
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 13:29:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m26HTMVn018452;
	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:29:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: count * performance issue 
In-reply-to: <47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com> 
References: <f966c2ee0803052142l6a105678jfe2da92a0d9371@mail.gmail.com>
	<f966c2ee0803052143k4570d771o6c300647d3b987d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080306060829.GA21084@a-kretschmer.de>
	<bf54be870803052215y5bb56235k5ea05ada1d701022@mail.gmail.com>
	<47CF8EA6.8070503@mark.mielke.cc>
	<20080306063643.GB21084@a-kretschmer.de>
	<f966c2ee0803052243w723e2866gbfc37128620d1c6d@mail.gmail.com>
	<B94D3180-BB72-43EB-BA1E-90CF53705386@fastcrypt.com>
	<f966c2ee0803060358k14dd7374h8ef3f4ca0818b04@mail.gmail.com>
	<3E9C3A51-C28E-4B75-9739-E344DAC72880@fastcrypt.com>
	<f966c2ee0803060443j3d9c1b66x5f59e00d084e841c@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0803060813570.11897@westnet.com>
	<47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
	message dated "Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:28:50 -0800"
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:29:22 -0500
Message-ID: <18451.1204824562@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200803/133
X-Sequence-Number: 29087

Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> writes:
> Count() on Oracle and MySQL is almost instantaneous, even for very large tables. So why can't Postgres do what they do?

AFAIK the above claim is false for Oracle.  They have the same
transactional issues we do.

			regards, tom lane