On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:00:10AM -0700, Mark Harrison wrote:
>
> Is there a way to optimize count(*) such that it does not have
> to do a sequential scan? We use this on some big tables and it
> is slowing down processing quite a lot.
No. There's a busload of discussion on this topic in the archives.
If you need an approximate value, you can get it from the system
tables.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
