On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:57:15AM +0200, Marcin Citowicki wrote: > I'm not a dba so I'm not sure if the time it takes to execute this query > is OK or not, it just seems a bit long to me.
This is perfectly OK. count(*) from table is generally slow. There are some ways to make it faster (depending if you need exact count, or some estimate). > I'd appreciate it if someone could share his/her thoughts on this. Is > there a way to make this table/query perform better? You can keep the count of elements in this table in separate table, and update it with triggers. > Any query I'm running that joins with transactions table takes forever > to complete, but maybe this is normal for a table this size. As for other queries - show them, and their explain analyze. Performance of count(*) is dependent basically only on size of table. In case of other queries - it might be simple to optimize them. Or impossible - without knowing the queries it's impossible to tell. Do you really care about count(*) from 60m+ record table? How often do you count the records? Best regards, depesz -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
