Re: Seqscan rather than Index

From: Frank Wiles
Subject: Re: Seqscan rather than Index
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20041220134059.215cf049.frank@wiles.org
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Seqscan rather than Index  (Tom Lane)
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, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:37 -0500
Tom Lane <> wrote:

> Frank Wiles <> writes:
> >   I've also seen a huge difference between select count(*) and
> >   select count(1) in older versions,
>
> That must have been before my time, ie, pre-6.4 or so.  There is
> certainly zero difference now.

  Yeah now that I think about it that sounds about the right time
  frame I last benchmarked it.

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



pgsql-performance by date:

From: Alexander Borkowski
Date:
Subject: Re: PG Logging is Slow
From: kondo_yo@itg.hitachi.co.jp
Date:
Subject: Question of performance of version 8