X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D9252809 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 16:13:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97485-08 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 19:13:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web53110.mail.yahoo.com (web53110.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.39.213]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 478BA52800 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 16:13:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 58245 invoked by uid 60001); 24 May 2005 19:13:28 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=2xJRiLpttIWZ5+YH6ittqUvJ9N4SKiapHoi5VVqn2mxfhmA0rjeGcjFahLNaprL4KmCtGbQ53pnX5XXXO1Gga+fX2zm9HLn1yX6jC2PdR7O6BhSlBqMPOKW4mE8ebWi8/Or1piYPudEmg3OVSWSTTSoned1h72tGcPZ944Tui4E= ; Message-ID: <20050524191328.58243.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.70.32.45] by web53110.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:13:27 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:13:27 -0700 (PDT) From: mark durrant Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql To: Bruno Wolff III Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.829 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200505/368 X-Sequence-Number: 12532 I'm far from an expert, so this may be off-base... but perhaps a suggestion would be to allow a hint to be sent to the optimizer if the user doesn't care that the result is "approximate" maybe then this wouldn't require adding more overhead to the indexes. MSSQL has something like this with (nolock) i.e. select count(*) from customers (nolock) where name like 'Mark%' Regardless, I'm very impressed with PostgreSQL and I think we're moving ahead with it. Mark --- Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:36:36 -0700, > mark durrant wrote: > > > > --MSSQL's ability to hit the index only and not > having > > to go to the table itself results in a _big_ > > performance/efficiency gain. If someone who's in > > development wants to pass this along, it would be > a > > nice addition to PostgreSQL sometime in the > future. > > I'd suspect that as well as making one query > faster, > > it would make everything else faster/more scalable > as > > the server load is so much less. > > This gets brought up a lot. The problem is that the > index doesn't include > information about whether the current transaction > can see the referenced > row. Putting this information in the index will add > significant overhead > to every update and the opinion of the developers is > that this would be > a net loss overall. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/