Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoatWSLoiTOJTXoR9SiB7EkBTHm1+MEo8z8axKS4fKQtjQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans  (Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-docs
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It's the "lobotomized engines" that are the problem, IMO --- people
> coming from databases like mysql tend to think count(*) just means
> reading a table size counter that the engine has anyway.

This is probably a much less common misconception than formerly, due
to the rise of InnoDB and the falling-out-of-favor experienced by
MyISAM.

I think some pessimism removal is probably warranted.  Yeah, somebody
else might be faster than us on this test, but that's probably true of
many tests.  And on others we will be faster than them.

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

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: PGDATA confusion
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: docs update for count(*) and index-only scans