Re: count * performance issue - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: count * performance issue
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.64.0803101853090.25041@westnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: count * performance issue  ("Joe Mirabal" <jmmirabal@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: count * performance issue
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Joe Mirabal wrote:

> I run queries on the data nad get immediate max and min as well as other
> aggrgate functions very quickly, however a select count(*) of the table
> takes forever usually nearly an hour or more.

Are you sure the form of "select count(*)" you're using is actually
utilizing the index to find a useful subset?  What do you get out of
EXPLAIN ANALZYE on the query?

In order for indexes to be helpful a couple of things need to happen:
1) They have to be structured correctly to be useful
2) There needs to be large enough settings for shared_buffes and
effective_cache_size that the database things it can use them efficiently
3) The tables involved need to be ANALYZEd to keep their statistics up to
date.

The parameters to run a 400GB *table* are very different from the
defaults; if you want tuning suggestions you should post the non-default
entries in your postgresql.conf file from what you've already adjusted
along with basic information about your server (PostgreSQL version, OS,
memory, disk setup).

> We in our warehouse use the count(*) as our verification of counts by
> day/month's etc

If you've got a database that size and you're doing that sort of thing on
it, you really should be considering partitioning as well.

  --
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: count * performance issue
Next
From: Miguel Arroz
Date:
Subject: Re: UPDATE 66k rows too slow