Re: Select count(*), the sequel - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Select count(*), the sequel
Date
Msg-id 29056.1288216182@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Select count(*), the sequel  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>)
Responses Re: Select count(*), the sequel  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>)
List pgsql-performance
Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> Just keeping the hope alive for faster compression.

Is there any evidence that that's something we should worry about?
I can't recall ever having seen a code profile that shows the
pg_lzcompress.c code high enough to look like a bottleneck compared
to other query costs.

Now, the benefits of 2X or 3X space savings would be pretty obvious,
but I've seen no evidence that we could easily achieve that either.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans
Next
From: Jon Nelson
Date:
Subject: Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans