Re: [SQLObject] PostgreSQL: costly count

[J-P L. <jp...@si...>]

Frank Barknecht wrote:

>I did,  it's largely the same as count(*) on Postgres, and also uses a
>sequential scan through the whole DB. I'm just reading through this
>looong thread on pgsql-performance:
>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-10/msg00058.php
>  
>
Hmm.. the thread seems to suggest the same thing.  I'm not sure if you 
can get around the sequential scan.  count(id) saves you the time of 
fetching all field contents.  As the thread points out, this time diff 
is significant for large tables.  For small ones, though, it's probably 
the same as count(*).

--
J-P