Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date
Msg-id AANLkTiknZi97dDwm7sHqy0EL7tpNEP9sY5uPV6AN+q=u@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...  (Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala@vmsinfo.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2011 6:03 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Whether or not it's bad application design, it's ubiquitous, and we
>> should make it work as best we can, IMNSHO. This often generates
>> complaints about Postgres, and if we really plan for world domination
>> this needs to be part of it.
>
> There are many other things to fix first. One of them would be optimizer
> decisions when a temp table is involved.

It would be pretty hard to make autoanalyze work on such tables
without removing some of the performance benefits of having such
tables in the first place - namely, the local buffer manager.  But you
could ANALYZE them by hand.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Maciek Sakrejda
Date:
Subject: Re: About pg_stat_activity
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: About pg_stat_activity