Let me just start off by saying that I *want* to use postgresql.
That's my goal. I do not want to use SQLServer. I'm posting this
message not to slam postgres, but to ask for someone to help me figure
out what I'm doing wrong.
I've used postgres for several years as the backend to web
applicatio
On Apr 14, 12:34 pm, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the entire purpose of your application is to run COUNT(*)
haha. no. I see your point.
I'll be doing statistical functions on group-by's. So I'll go back
and give it another try with queries like those. And I'll use some of
the
On Apr 14, 2:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Wilson") wrote:
> For instance, your count of distinct userids is probably not using the
> index you just created. If it still isn't using it after you ANALYZE
> the table, try rewriting the query using group by (select count(*)
> from (select userid fr
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:30:15 +0100
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ivan Sergio Borgonovo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But why once you add the index and count distinct the performances
> > are still so far?
> > I'd say that counting in this case is not the hardest thing to do,
>
"Ivan Sergio Borgonovo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But why once you add the index and count distinct the performances
> are still so far?
> I'd say that counting in this case is not the hardest thing to do,
> but rather the "distinct" part.
Your tests have been a bit unfortunate in finding a f
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:34:36 -0400 Chris Browne wrote:
> If the entire purpose of your application is to run COUNT(*) against
> the entireties of a table with 180M rows, then PostgreSQL may not be
> the right database for your application.
For running a COUNT(*) without WHERE you could even add a
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:34:36 -0400
Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another test. In postgres I added an index to the userid column
> > and then counted distinct userids. The average run time over
> > three queries was 4666 seconds, or 78 minutes. Unbelievable.
> > On SQL Server, w
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another test. In postgres I added an index to the userid column and
> > then counted distinct userids. The average run time over three
> > queries was 4666 seconds, or
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me just start off by saying that I *want* to use postgresql.
> That's my goal. I do not want to use SQLServer. I'm posting this
> message not to slam postgres, but to ask for someone to help me figure
> out what I'm doing wrong.
>
> I've used
