Josh Kupershmidt writes:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it might need adjustment, but I don't think we should remove it
>> outright. The people who complain that COUNT(*) is not O(1) are still
>> going to be complaining. On tables that are not read-mostly, there's
>>
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Kupershmidt writes:
>> func.sgml still claims that a sequential scan is the only way to
>> execute a SELECT COUNT(*) query. I think this note should just be
>> removed from the current docs, given the existence of index-only
>> scans; patch a
Josh Kupershmidt writes:
> func.sgml still claims that a sequential scan is the only way to
> execute a SELECT COUNT(*) query. I think this note should just be
> removed from the current docs, given the existence of index-only
> scans; patch attached.
Well, it might need adjustment, but I don't t
Hi all,
func.sgml still claims that a sequential scan is the only way to
execute a SELECT COUNT(*) query. I think this note should just be
removed from the current docs, given the existence of index-only
scans; patch attached.
I didn't see any other outright incorrect spots regarding COUNT(*).
Th
