Kevin, On 2/22/06 8:57 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I hesitate to raise this issue again, but I've noticed something which I > thought might be worth mentioning. I've never thought the performance > of count(*) on a table was a significant issue, but I'm prepared to say > that -- for me, at least -- it is officially and totally a NON-issue. Cool! Kudos to Tom for implementing the improvements in the executor to move tuples faster through the pipeline. We see a CPU limit (yes, another limit) of about 300MB/s now on Opteron 250 processors running on Linux. The filesystem can do 420MB/s sequential scan in 8k pages, but Postgres count(*) on 8.1.3 can only do about 300MB/s. This is still a very large improvement over past versions, but we'd always like to see more... - Luke
