Re: [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized
Date
Msg-id 200310050420.h954KWT12351@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized table layout)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] COUNT(*) again (was Re: Index/Function organized table layout)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> > The point I was trying to make was that faster count(*)'s is just a side
> > effect. If we could (conditionally) keep visibility info in indexes,
>
> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise.  The atomicity
> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
> the performance issues.

What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xid to the
index tuples?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3