Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8782E002D
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:43:06 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 52721-03 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:42:54 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com
 [64.233.178.245])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E1E2E0051
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:42:54 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id x43so2845320hsb.3
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	bh=e5sJMMSe3VfClLLLxq95rOxZVaIiOFFxqFCzwLo4j/g=;
	b=hL/kVXRb1rEWvVCzF4VZEg1J98bIkcHyWgfDO8MXE9mG5rQVbe5JVurkiKg9y2go4DPR14A0hayLFYgO+3OutBJD2O4IhVy2tJ4p6yaES2qCOiG/djqpMRvMt/kctKiL6uMqSF4Yq1v30Gz3vq9k1URVNiW0gkzG/fy511eQBZ8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=atIH7H2BnLUzsPHYTmT7+r1JhWHxCIsVgeVYloOZlb0GOKtK25PHl/iy26Zf1W+Q13zHMWCPBEO7L0Oj0k0SJZcNC+RCYMzAljQ2A36YjxiujX7V96nfqT5MU1n/33SRHiqLz9Ugmr9WP15fpm90CyVCI+VApoqXtsrcvnAWqZE=
Received: by 10.101.71.9 with SMTP id y9mr20467468ank.15.1206434573424;
	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.105.20 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f966c2ee0803250142hae53ef4mfee4487d1fd052a2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:12:53 +0530
From: "sathiya psql" <sathiya.psql@gmail.com>
To: "jose javier parra sanchez" <jojapasa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: postgresql is slow with larger table even it is in RAM
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <99f1636c0803250139g321329dbr7c640213e9132583@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_1842_17131782.1206434573410"
References: <f966c2ee0803250135h57ba1d5bs41f77616ae7186dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<99f1636c0803250139g321329dbr7c640213e9132583@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200803/459
X-Sequence-Number: 29413

------=_Part_1842_17131782.1206434573410
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM, jose javier parra sanchez <
jojapasa@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's been said zillions of times on the maillist. Using a select
> count(*) in postgres is slow, and probably will be slow for a long
> time. So that function is not a good way to measure perfomance.
>
Yes, but if the data is in HDD then we can say this...

but now the data is in RAM

------=_Part_1842_17131782.1206434573410
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM, jose javier parra sanchez &lt;<a href="mailto:jojapasa@gmail.com">jojapasa@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
It&#39;s been said zillions of times on the maillist. Using a select<br>
count(*) in postgres is slow, and probably will be slow for a long<br>
time. So that function is not a good way to measure perfomance.<br>
</blockquote><div>Yes, but if the data is in HDD then we can say this...<br><br>but now the data is in RAM<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_1842_17131782.1206434573410--