On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> writes:
>> On 2010-10-12 19:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway, if anyone is hot to make COUNT(*) faster, that's where to look.
>
>> Just having 32 bytes bytes of "payload" would more or less double
>> you time to count if I read you test results correctly?. .. and in the
>> situation where diskaccess would be needed .. way more.
>
>> Dividing by pg_relation_size by the amout of tuples in our production
>> system I end up having no avg tuple size less than 100bytes.
>
> Well, yeah. I deliberately tested with a very narrow table so as to
> stress the per-row CPU costs as much as possible. With any wider table
> you're just going to be I/O bound.
On a wimpy disk, I/O bound for sure. But my disks go 1000MB/sec. No query can go fast enough for them. The best
I'vegotten is 800MB/sec, on a wide row (average 800 bytes). Most tables go 300MB/sec or so. And with 72GB of RAM,
manyscans are in-memory anyway.
A single SSD with supercapacitor will go about 500MB/sec by itself next spring. I will easily be able to build a
systemwith 2GB/sec I/O for under $10k.
