> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:45:09 -0800 > From: Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(cut) > Thanks for the link. It looks like it breaks it up into chunks of about 2KB. I think the > conversation was mostly assuming the tables were somewhat closer to the size of an > index. If you have more than 2KB per tuple, pretty much anything you do with an index > would be faster I would think. Hi Jeff/Alvaro, I'm considering an application at the moment whereby I would need to do lots of COUNT(*) on lots of separate tables without a WHERE clause. Would something like the following help speed up the COUNT(*) by reducing the tuple size being used for the count? CREATE SEQUENCE id_seq; CREATE TABLE person_count ( id int8 ); CREATE TABLE person ( id int8 DEFAULT nextval('id_seq'); first_name text, surname text, age int, address1 text, address2 text, address3 text, address4 text, postcode text tel text ); For each insert: BEGIN; INSERT INTO person (first_name, .... Tel) VALUES ('Fred', .... '12345'); INSERT INTO person_count(id) VALUES (currval('id_seq')); COMMIT; So then I would use SELECT COUNT(*) FROM person_count whenever I wanted to know the current number of person records. How much quicker would a COUNT(*) be if visibility were included in the indices as opposed to a "hacked" approach like this? Many thanks, Mark. ------------------------ WebBased Ltd South West Technology Centre Tamar Science Park Plymouth PL6 8BT T: +44 (0)1752 791021 F: +44 (0)1752 791023 W: http://www.webbased.co.uk ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend