[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dror Matalon) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Dror Matalon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > explain analyze select count(*) from items where channel < 5000;
>> >                                                         QUERY PLAN
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >  Aggregate  (cost=249141.54..249141.54 rows=1 width=0) (actual 
>> > time=26224.603..26224.608 rows=1 loops=1)
>> >    ->  Seq Scan on items  (cost=0.00..245377.52 rows=1505605 width=0) (actual 
>> > time=7.599..17686.869 rows=1632057 loops=1)
>> >          Filter: (channel < 5000)
>> >  Total runtime: 26224.703 ms
>> > 
>> > 
>> > How can it do a sequential scan and apply a filter to it in less time
>> > than the full sequential scan? Is it actually using an index without
>> > really telling me? 
>> 
>> It's not using the index and not telling you. 
>> 
>> It's possible the count(*) operator itself is taking some time. Postgres
>
> I find it hard to believe that the actual counting would take a
> significant amount of time.

Most of the time involves:

 a) Reading each page of the table, and
 b) Figuring out which records on those pages are still "live."

What work were you thinking was involved in doing the counting?

>> doesn't have to call it on the rows that don't match the where clause. How
>> long does "explain analyze select 1 from items" with and without the where
>> clause take?
>
> Same as count(*). Around 55 secs with no where clause, around 25 secs
> with.

Good; at least that's consistent...
-- 
(format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/postgresql.html
Signs of a Klingon  Programmer #2: "You  question the worthiness of my
code? I should kill you where you stand!"

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to