Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2011-10-28T18:51:28Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Remove pg_upgrade dependency on the 'postgres' database existing in the
- 51eba98cf459 9.2.0 cited

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I also tried changing the BufferIsValid() tests in
>> visibilitymap_test() to use BufferIsInvalid() instead, with the sense
>> of the tests reversed (see attached vismap-test-invalid.patch).  Since
>> BufferIsInvalid() just checks for InvalidBuffer instead of also doing
>> the sanity checks, it's significantly cheaper.  This also reduced the
>> time to about 330 ms, so seems clearly worth doing.
>
> Hmm.  I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts.  It seems
> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
> inverses.

Seems reasonable.  It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company