Here's the queries and explains... Granted, it's not a huge difference here, but both timings are absolutely consistent. Using max(), this runs almost 15 queries/sec and "limit 1" runs at almost 40 queries/sec.
Is the differene in explain analyze expected behavior? (rows=168196 vs. rows=1) (The table is freshly analayzed) select max(item_id) from receipt_items Result (cost=0.04..0.05 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.030..0.031 rows=1 loops=1) InitPlan -> Limit (cost=0.00..0.04 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.023..0.024 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using receipt_items_pkey on receipt_items (cost=0.00..6883.71 rows=168196 width=4) (actual time=0.020..0.020 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (item_id IS NOT NULL) Total runtime: 0.067 ms select item_id from receipt_items order by item_id desc limit 1 Limit (cost=0.00..0.04 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.010..0.011 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using receipt_items_pkey on receipt_items (cost=0.00..6883.71 rows=168196 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=1 loops=1) Total runtime: 0.026 ms A couple more similar examples from this table: select max(create_date) from receipt_items Result (cost=0.05..0.06 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.032..0.032 rows=1 loops=1) InitPlan -> Limit (cost=0.00..0.05 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.025..0.026 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using test_idx_1 on receipt_items (cost=0.00..7986.82 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.022..0.022 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (create_date IS NOT NULL) Total runtime: 0.069 ms select create_date from receipt_items order by create_date desc limit 1; Limit (cost=0.00..0.05 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.011..0.012 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using test_idx_1 on receipt_items (cost=0.00..7986.82 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.009..0.009 rows=1 loops=1) Total runtime: 0.027 ms -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:48 PM To: Adam Rich Cc: 'Craig A. James'; 'Guy Rouillier'; 'PostgreSQL Performance' Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS "Adam Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm using 8.2 and using order by & limit is still faster than MAX() > even though MAX() now seems to rewrite to an almost identical plan > internally. Care to quantify that? AFAICT any difference is within measurement noise, at least for the case of separately-issued SQL commands. > Count(*) still seems to use a full table scan rather than an index scan. Yup. Don't hold your breath for something different. Postgres has made design choices that make certain cases fast and others slow, and count(*) is one case that has come out on the short end of the stick. If that's your most important measure of performance, then indeed you should select a different database that's made different tradeoffs. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
