Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Date
Msg-id 20908.1319339688@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Anyhow, here's the scoop.  On my desktop machine running F14, running
>>> SELECT sum(1) FROM pgbench_accounts in a tight loop, 60 s worth of
>>> oprofile data:
>>> 176830   13.0801  postgres                 postgres                 ExecProject

>> Hm, that's weird.  In both these cases, I'd have expected that
>> ExecProject would get optimized away thanks to selection of a physical
>> tlist for the scan node.  Wonder if that got broken ...

> If it did, it looks like it wasn't recent.  I set up the same test
> case on my MacBook using REL9_1_STABLE and REL9_0_STABLE and set a
> breakpoint on ExecProject().  Both back-branches appear to also call
> ExecProject() for every tuple.

Oh, the ExecProject calls are coming from advance_aggregates().
Move along, nothing to see here ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.2] make_greater_string() does not return a string in some cases
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Deferrable unique constraints vs join removal -- bug?