Re: Performance of count(*) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Performance of count(*)
Date
Msg-id b42b73150703220639x40dbac7en29318778b43e1e4c@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Performance of count(*)  (Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>)
Responses Re: Performance of count(*)
Re: Performance of count(*)
List pgsql-performance
On 3/22/07, Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote:
> I just try to find out why a simple count(*) might last that long.
> At first I tried explain, which rather quickly knows how many rows
> to check, but the final count is two orders of magnitude slower.

You can get the approximate count by selecting reltuples from
pg_class.  It is valid as of last analyze.

As others suggest select count(*) from table is very special case
which non-mvcc databases can optimize for.  There are many reasons why
this is the case and why it explains nothing about the relative
performance of the two databases.   This is probably #1 most
frequenctly asked question to -performance...there is a wealth of
information in the archives.

merlin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Parallel Vacuum
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Vacuum