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

From Vitalii Tymchyshyn
Subject Re: Select count(*), the sequel
Date
Msg-id 4CBBFE2F.3010801@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Select count(*), the sequel  (Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Select count(*), the sequel
List pgsql-performance
16.10.10 19:51, Mladen Gogala написав(ла):
> There was some doubt as for the speed of doing the select count(*) in
> PostgreSQL and Oracle.
> To that end, I copied the most part of the Oracle table I used before
> to Postgres. Although the copy
> wasn't complete, the resulting table is already significantly larger
> than the table it was copied from. The result still shows that Oracle
> is significantly faster:

Hello.

Did you vacuum postgresql DB before the count(*). I ask this because
(unless table was created & loaded in same transaction) on the first
scan, postgresql has to write hint bits to the whole table. Second scan
may be way faster.

Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Samuel Gendler
Date:
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?
Next
From: Mladen Gogala
Date:
Subject: Re: Select count(*), the sequel