| From: | Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Update violating constraint |
| Date: | 2007-05-03 14:00:25 |
| Message-ID: | 194540.41655.qm@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > update foo
> > set field = -1 * (field + 1);
> > update foo
> > set field = -1 * field
> > where field < 0;
> >
> Yes, in fact I actually use option one already in the handling of sql
> trees, so I'm annoyed with myself for not figuring that out. I don't
> know why you'd ever use your second option ever, as it virtually
> guarantees problems at a random point in your DB's growth.
If you are updating a large portion of your tree, you will probably want to throw in a vacuum in
between the two updates. This should reduce the bloat caused by dead tuples in both your index
and table.
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-05-03 14:06:52 | Re: Update violating constraint |
| Previous Message | Stephen Harris | 2007-05-03 13:57:12 | Re: Have I b0rked something? Slow comparisons on "where x in (...)" |