From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:53:20 -0400
Message-ID: <21712.1050890000@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030421004630.GL1847@filer>
References: <EKEBJNAJDPKJBDFGJNIJAENMDBAA.denis@next2me.com>
<200304090918.45275.josh@agliodbs.com>
<20030419130146.GI1847@filer>
<21955.1050767928@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030420011336.GJ1847@filer>
<24735.1050809664@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030420062852.GK1847@filer>
<26961.1050852092@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030421004630.GL1847@filer>
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
> Personally, I'd rather see such development effort go towards more
> beneficial improvements, such as replication, 2PC, SQL/MED, etc. (or
> even improving the efficiency of MVCC, since it was mentioned here as
> a problem! :-). I consider COUNT(*) without a WHERE clause to be a
> corner case, despite the frequency of questions about it.
Exactly.
> But I don't
> think we should reject a patch to implement fast COUNT(*) just because
> it represents a performance tradeoff, at least if it's GUC-controlled.
Well, this is moot since I see no one offering to provide such a patch.
But performance tradeoffs are only one of the costs involved. I suspect
any such mechanism would be invasive enough to represent a nontrivial
ongoing maintenance cost, whether anyone uses it or not. The extent
to which it munges core functionality would have to be a factor in
deciding whether to accept it. It'd take lots more thought than we've
expended in this thread to get an accurate handle on just what would
be involved...
(BTW, if anyone actually is thinking about this, please make it a
per-table option not a global GUC option.)
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kevin@sysexperts.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used
In-Reply-To: <21712.1050890000@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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