On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:48:16PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:24:05AM +0200, Cestmir Hybl wrote:
> > Isn't it possible (and reasonable) for these environments to keep track of
> > whether there is a transaction in progress with update to given table and
> > if not, use an index scan (count(*) where) or cached value (count(*)) to
> > perform this kind of query?
> Even if there is no running update, there might still be dead rows in the
> table. In any case, of course, a new update could always be occurring while
> your counting query was still running.
I don't see this being different from count(*) as it is today.
Updating a count column is certainly clever. If using a trigger,
perhaps it would allow the equivalent of:
select count(*) from table for update;
:-)
Cheers,
mark
(not that this is necessarily a good thing!)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
