Search Postgresql Archives

Re: performance of count(*)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On May 6, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:

> Anyway I'd recommend to start with the eager approach, it's much easier
> to implement. You can implement the lazy approach later, if you find out
> it's needed.

With the eager approach, I think I'm too likely to get write conflicts. Thanks for the reference to the paper, I believe that's what I was looking for.

> And you should strive to use HOT feature (if you're on >= 8.4),
> especially with the eager approach - it often does a lot of updates and
> leads to bloat of the aggregated table. So decrease the fillfactor and
> do not index the columns that are updated by the triggers.

See, that's the kind of info I'm looking for ;-)

On May 6, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> If the WHERE clause is fairly selective and indexed, that should be
> fast.  Not as fast as estimates based on trigger-written values in
> another table, of course, but reasonably fast.  So the first order of
> business is usually to find or create indexes that will make SELECT on
> the same criteria fast.

In this case, it depends on the result of a pretty complex join that involves some gnarly time calculations, and finding the unmatched rows from one side of an outer join. I really don't think there's a way to optimize the straight-up query to be faster than it is, I looked at that for a good long time, explain/analyze and all. Postgres is using the appropriate index to narrow things down as much as it can at the very beginning, it just then has to perform a heck of a lot of work to finish the join... And it's not taking ***that*** long--it's just that I want it faster!

> It's only unqualified "SELECT count(*)" that is slow.  Generally, the
> system table is good enough for that, I find.  (Someone: "How long
> will this take?"  Me: "There are about 400 million rows to go
> through."  Even if you're off by 50 million at that point, it doesn't
> matter.)

FYI, I have no need for unqualified select count(*) in this app--just doesn't happen, ever ;-)

Thanks.

-- 
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice





-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux