Re: [RFC] speed up count(*) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: [RFC] speed up count(*)
Date
Msg-id 4dc52950-06af-9a7c-1d48-e28909f815ec@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [RFC] speed up count(*)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [RFC] speed up count(*)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: [RFC] speed up count(*)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/21/21 4:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:19 PM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>> That is a grossly overstated position. When I have looked, it is often
>> not that terribly far off. And for many use cases that I have heard of
>> at least, quite adequate.
> 
> I don't think it's grossly overstated. If you need an approximation it
> may be good enough, but I don't think it will often be exactly correct
> - probably only if the table is small and rarely modified.

meh -- the people who expect this to be impossibly fast don't typically 
need or expect it to be exactly correct, and there is no way to make it 
"exactly correct" in someone's snapshot without doing all the work.

That is why I didn't suggest making it the default. If you flip the 
switch, you would get a very fast approximation. If you care about 
accuracy, you accept it has to be slow.

Joe
-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: parallelizing the archiver
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] speed up count(*)