Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Subject Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility
Date
Msg-id 20080109210936.0d82bdf7@webthatworks.it
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility  (Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: count(*) and bad design was: Experiences with extensibility  (Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:39 +0100
Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:

> The decision to use MVCC in PostgreSQL makes the point moot.

...

thanks.

> In PostgreSQL, COUNT(*) responds closely at the same speed
> regardless of other transactions. Which way do you prefer?

Considering the relative value of count my interest was for something
that is even less precise than the "usual" count but performs better.
I'm not proposing to turn Postgres into MySQL.

--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Date:
Subject: Re: Experiences with extensibility
Next
From: Kris Jurka
Date:
Subject: Re: Prepared Statements