On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 07:27:38PM -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> My guess is that this is part of a larger query. There isn't really much
> you can do. If you want all 3.2M rows, then you have to wait for them to
> be pulled in.
To me, it looks like he'll get 88 rows, not 3.2M. Surely we must be able to
do something better than a full sequential scan in this case?
test=# create table foo ( bar char(4) );
CREATE TABLE
test=# insert into foo values ('0000');
INSERT 24773320 1
test=# insert into foo values ('0000');
INSERT 24773321 1
test=# insert into foo values ('1111');
INSERT 24773322 1
test=# select * from foo group by bar;
bar
------
1111
0000
(2 rows)
I considered doing some odd magic with generate_series() and subqueries with
LIMIT 1, but it was a bit too weird in the end :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
