Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20041217220907.GA10313@uio.no
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson")
Responses: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Seqscan rather than Index  (Jon Anderson, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (David Brown, )
  Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Richard Huxton, )
   Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Greg Stark, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
       Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Frank Wiles, )
     Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Bruno Wolff III, )
      Re: Seqscan rather than Index  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )

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.)

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: Which is more efficient?
From: Bruno Wolff III
Date:
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index