Re: count * performance issue - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Robins Tharakan
Subject Re: count * performance issue
Date
Msg-id 36af4bed0803101957u6078127fq78dc3384fe78de5d@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: count * performance issue  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Responses Re: count * performance issue  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
Re: count * performance issue  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: count * performance issue  ("Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
Re: count * performance issue  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Hi,

I have been reading this conversation for a few days now and I just wanted to ask this. From the release notes, one of the new additions in 8.3 is (Allow col IS NULL to use an index (Teodor)).

Sorry, if I am missing something here, but shouldn't something like this allow us to get a (fast) accurate count ?

SELECT COUNT(*) from table WHERE indexed_field IS NULL
+
SELECT COUNT(*) from table WHERE indexed_field IS NOT NULL

Robins Tharakan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] count * performance issue
To: Joe Mirabal <jmmirabal@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org


On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Joe Mirabal wrote:

> I run queries on the data nad get immediate max and min as well as other
> aggrgate functions very quickly, however a select count(*) of the table
> takes forever usually nearly an hour or more.

Are you sure the form of "select count(*)" you're using is actually
utilizing the index to find a useful subset?  What do you get out of
EXPLAIN ANALZYE on the query?

In order for indexes to be helpful a couple of things need to happen:
1) They have to be structured correctly to be useful
2) There needs to be large enough settings for shared_buffes and
effective_cache_size that the database things it can use them efficiently
3) The tables involved need to be ANALYZEd to keep their statistics up to
date.

The parameters to run a 400GB *table* are very different from the
defaults; if you want tuning suggestions you should post the non-default
entries in your postgresql.conf file from what you've already adjusted
along with basic information about your server (PostgreSQL version, OS,
memory, disk setup).

> We in our warehouse use the count(*) as our verification of counts by
> day/month's etc

If you've got a database that size and you're doing that sort of thing on
it, you really should be considering partitioning as well.

 --
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Vlad Arkhipov
Date:
Subject: Re: Nested loop vs merge join: inconsistencies between estimated and actual time
Next
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: count * performance issue