Re: Win2K Questions
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-11-10T05:13:51Z
Lists: pgsql-general
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes: > On Friday 08 Nov 2002 5:21 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> The problem with optimizing COUNT() is that different backends have >> different tuple views, meaning the count from one backend could be >> different than from another backend. I can't see how to optimize that. > The only way I could model it when I thought about it some time ago was as > though you had a separate table "pg_table_counts" with columns (tableoid, > count) - every insert/delete would also update this table. The problem with that is that it would create a serialization bottleneck: if transaction A has done an insert into table X, then every other transaction B that wants to insert or delete in X has to wait for A to commit or abort before B can update X's row in pg_table_counts. That is exactly the scenario that MVCC was designed to avoid. What it comes down to is that you can optimize "select count(*) from foo" at the expense of slowing down *every* kind of database-update operation. We don't think that's a win. regards, tom lane