Re: Seqscan rather than Index - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Frank Wiles
Subject Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date
Msg-id 20041217170229.4de276a7.frank@wiles.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>)
Responses Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Re: Seqscan rather than Index
List pgsql-performance
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:09:07 +0100
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:56:27PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > I'm a bit unsure -- should counting ~3 million rows (no OIDs, PG
> > 7.4, everything in cache, 32-byte rows) take ~3500ms on an Athlon 64
> > 2800+?
>
> (I realize I was a bit unclear here. This is a completely separate
> case, not related to the original poster -- I was just wondering if
> what I'm seeing is normal or not.)

  It depends more on your disk IO than the processor.  Counting isn't
  processor intensive, but reading through the entire table on disk
  is.  I've also seen a huge difference between select count(*) and
  select count(1) in older versions, haven't tried it on a recent
  version however.

 ---------------------------------
   Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>
   http://www.wiles.org
 ---------------------------------


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Error in VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE (not enough memory)
Next
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index