From: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ismo.tuononen@solenovo.fi, Albert Cervera Areny <albert@sedifa.com>
Subject: Re: Performance of count(*)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <200703221426.51948.mweilguni@sime.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703221323590.1503@ismoli.solenovo.jns>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0703221149210.13747@wr-linux02>
<200703221208.19358.albert@sedifa.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0703221323590.1503@ismoli.solenovo.jns>
Am Donnerstag, 22. März 2007 12:30 schrieb ismo.tuononen@solenovo.fi:
> approximated count?????
>
> why? who would need it? where you can use it?
>
> calculating costs and desiding how to execute query needs
> approximated count, but it's totally worthless information for any user
> IMO.
No, it is not useless. Try:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=test&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=
Do you really think google counted each of those individual 895 million
results? It doesn't. In fact, the estimate of google can be off by an order
of magnitude, and still nobody complains...
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: mweilguni@sime.com, albert@sedifa.com
Subject: Re: Performance of count(*)
In-Reply-To: <200703221426.51948.mweilguni@sime.com>
* 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