Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaGKfu5kcZnQf_ZVjhy+micFdMhLiUaJZiXTHAVX2GTkw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Anyhow, here's the scoop.  On my desktop machine running F14, running
>> SELECT sum(1) FROM pgbench_accounts in a tight loop, 60 s worth of
>> oprofile data:
>
>> 176830   13.0801  postgres                 postgres                 ExecProject
>
> Hm, that's weird.  In both these cases, I'd have expected that
> ExecProject would get optimized away thanks to selection of a physical
> tlist for the scan node.  Wonder if that got broken ...

If it did, it looks like it wasn't recent.  I set up the same test
case on my MacBook using REL9_1_STABLE and REL9_0_STABLE and set a
breakpoint on ExecProject().  Both back-branches appear to also call
ExecProject() for every tuple.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: psql command for bytea output