On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 05:02:29PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote: > It depends more on your disk IO than the processor. Counting isn't > processor intensive, but reading through the entire table on disk > is. I've also seen a huge difference between select count(*) and > select count(1) in older versions, haven't tried it on a recent > version however.
Like I said, all in cache, so no disk IO. count(*) and count(1) give me identical results. (BTW, I don't think this is a count problem, it's a "sequential scan" problem -- I'm just trying to find out if this is natural or not, ie. if this is just something I have to expect in a relational database, even with no I/O.) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
