>> Gregory S. Williamson wrote: >>> [ re COUNT(*) ] >>> On Informix however it is blindingly fast, and can also be instantly >>> conjured with the dbaccess tool (Info/Table/Status). They might be >>> stashing this count somewhere, but it is not available when the table >>> is locked, as during a load. However they do it, performance does not >>> seem to suffer, and having this rapidly available is certainly nice. >>> Especially when people are used to it. > >> Informix locks rows during modification so they don't have the MVCC >> visibility problem we have (some rows are visible to only some >> backends). > >More to the point: "performance does not seem to suffer" is an opinion >based on no facts. You have no idea what it's costing Informix to >maintain that count --- ie, how much faster might other things go if >COUNT(*) didn't have to be instant?
Excellent point. But since my standard was "is Postgres as fast as Informix" on bulk loads / deletes / updates (which is where this delay would surely manifest itself) I had a faint disappointment on first using Postgres and seeing this: "The load, etc. speeds are close enough, so why this wild disparity in count" I thought to myself. I understand well why this is -- been hashed out a lot on various lists -- and I am not specifically arguing for changing Postgres. Just emphasizing that this needs to be spelled well in any "Gotchas" discussion. >We know quite well what it would cost to make this happen in Postgres, >and it's the general judgment that we don't want to pay those costs --- >certainly not to force everyone to pay them. An option (compile time ?) that let users have some tradeoff *might* be of interest to some. But not worth desitracting core people from more pressing issues. My $0.02 worth ... sorry to waste bandwidth. G ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
