On 2014-04-03 10:00:18 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:34:32AM -0300, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote: > > > > What strategy for showing the total number of records returned do you > > recommend?. > > The best answer for this I've ever seen is to limit the number of rows > you're counting (at least at first) to some reasonably small number -- > say 5000. This is usually reasonably fast for a well-indexed query, > and your pagination can say something like "First n of at least 5000 > results", unless you have fewer than 5000 results, in which case you > know the number (and the count returned quickly anyway). As you're > displaying those first 5000 results, you can work in the background > getting a more accurate number. This is more work for your > application, but it provides a much better user experience (and you > can delay getting the detailed number until the user pages through to > the second page of results, so you don't count everything needlessly > in case the user just uses the first page, which IME happens a lot). > Note that even Google doesn't give you an accurate number -- they just > say "about ten trillion" or whatever. > > Hope that's useful, > > A >
Sounds nice, is it possible to modify my "count(*) over()" to what you suggest?. -- Leonardo M. Ramé Medical IT - Griensu S.A. Av. Colón 636 - Piso 8 Of. A X5000EPT -- Córdoba Tel.: +54(351)4246924 +54(351)4247788 +54(351)4247979 int. 19 Cel.: +54 9 (011) 40871877 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
