pg.ddx.io  pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: denis@next2me.com
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:18:45 -0700
Message-ID: <200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EKEBJNAJDPKJBDFGJNIJAENMDBAA.denis@next2me.com>
References: <EKEBJNAJDPKJBDFGJNIJAENMDBAA.denis@next2me.com>

Denis,

> Are you saying the 7.4 'group by' trick would be faster than the simple
> select count(*)? That seems hard to believe, being that the request now has
> to fetch / sort the data. I must be missing something.

No, I'm saying that the 7.4 hash-aggregate is faster than the same query was 
under 7.2 or 7.3.   Much faster.   But it does little to speed up a raw 
count(*).

> The kind of requests that I am really interested in are:
> select count(*) from table where table.column like 'pattern%'

Hash-aggregates may, in fact, help with this.   Care to try downloading the 
the source from CVS?

> These seems to go much master on mysql (which I guess it not a MVCC
> database? or wasn't the Innobase supposed to make it so?),

They did incorporate a lot of MVCC logic into InnoDB tables, yes.  Which means 
that if SELECT count(*) on an InnoDB table is just as fast as a MyISAM table, 
then it is not accurate.  This would be in keeping with MySQL's design 
philosophy, which values performance and simplicity over accuracy and 
precision -- the opposite of our philosophy.

> So, in the meantime, I've decided to split up my data into two sets,
> the static big tables which are handled by mysql, and the rest of it
> handled by postgresql....

Hey, if it works for you, it's probably easier than dealing with the 
PostgreSQL workarounds to this performance issue.  I'll ask you to give 
PostgreSQL a try for those tables again when 7.4 comes out.

> ps: apologies for the cross-posting.

De nada.   The Performance list is the right place for this sort of question 
in the future.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco




view thread (35+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.com>
Permalink:  ../200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.com

 · 

reply

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-sql@postgresql.org
  Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, denis@next2me.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used
  In-Reply-To: <200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.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