Re: Quick estimate of num of rows & table size - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Lonni J Friedman
Subject Re: Quick estimate of num of rows & table size
Date
Msg-id CAP=oouHENneb0Jq2ADDmVqHGj=oKx76s3RNvkSvE7qnCW7s9ag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Quick estimate of num of rows & table size  (Thalis Kalfigkopoulos <tkalfigo@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Quick estimate of num of rows & table size
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
<tkalfigo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read somewhere that the following query gives a quick estimate of the # of
> rows in a table regardless of the table's size (which would matter in a
> simple SELECT count(*)?):
>
> SELECT (CASE WHEN reltuples > 0 THEN
> pg_relation_size('mytable')/(8192*relpages/reltuples)
> ELSE 0
> END)::bigint AS estimated_row_count
> FROM pg_class
> WHERE oid = 'mytable'::regclass;
>
> If relpages & reltuples are recorded accurately each time VACUUM is run,
> wouldn't it be the same to just grab directly the value of reltuples like:
>
> SELECT reltuples FROM pg_class WHERE oid='mytable'::regclass;
>
> In the same manner, are pg_relation_size('mytable') and 8192*relpages the
> same?
>
> I run both assumptions against a freshly VACUUMed table and they seem
> correct.

This doesn't seem to work for me.  I get an estimated row_count of 0
on a table that I know has millions of rows.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
Date:
Subject: Quick estimate of num of rows & table size
Next
From: Thalis Kalfigkopoulos
Date:
Subject: Re: Quick estimate of num of rows & table size