Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas
Date
Msg-id 20576.1205340164@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Responses Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> writes:
> Fine - once per transaction instead of once per insert. Still, if there 
> is overhead to this (updating a secondary summary table), does it really 
> make sense to have it for every table?

We certainly wouldn't accept a patch that imposed this overhead on every
table.

One of the advantages of framing it as an explicit set of triggers is
that then you have a natural way of indicating which table(s) you want
the feature for (and are willing to pay the overhead to get it).
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: TODO-list on wiki (was: TODO update about SQLSTATE to PGconn)
Next
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea about sql command create table like