Re: *sigh* - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Randolf Richardson
Subject Re: *sigh*
Date
Msg-id Xns944F753D7F3C5rr8xca@200.46.204.72
Whole thread Raw
In response to *sigh*  (Thomas Zehetbauer <thomasz@hostmaster.org>)
Responses COPY TABLE TO
Re: *sigh*
List pgsql-hackers
"markir@paradise.net.nz (Mark Kirkwood)" wrote in 
comp.databases.postgresql.hackers:

[sNip]
> How about:
> 
> Implement a function "estimated_count" that can be used instead of 
> "count". It could use something like the algorithm in 
> src/backend/commands/analyze.c to get a reasonably accurate psuedo count 
> quickly.
> 
> The advantage of this approach is that "count" still means (exact)count 
> (for your xact snapshot anyway). Then the situation becomes:
> 
> Want a fast count? - use estimated_count(*)
> Want an exact count - use count(*)
       I think this is an excellent solution.

-- 
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Randolf Richardson
Date:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between int2 and int16?
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Issue with Linux+Pentium SMP Context Switching