Re: Performance of count(*) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Michael Stone
Subject Re: Performance of count(*)
Date
Msg-id 20070322141807.GE11402@mathom.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance of count(*)  (ismo.tuononen@solenovo.fi)
Responses Re: Performance of count(*)  (mark@mark.mielke.cc)
Re: Performance of count(*)  ("Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:30:35PM +0200, ismo.tuononen@solenovo.fi wrote:
>approximated count?????
>
>why? who would need it? where you can use it?

Do a google query. Look at the top of the page, where it says
"results N to M of about O". For user interfaces (which is where a lot
of this count(*) stuff comes from) you quite likely don't care about the
exact count, because the user doesn't really care about the exact count.

IIRC, that's basically what you get with the mysql count anyway, since
there are corner cases for results in a transaction. Avoiding those
cases is why the postgres count takes so long; sometimes that's what's
desired and sometimes it is not.

Mike Stone

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance of count(*)