From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
Date: | 2003-04-18 06:06:04 |
Message-ID: | 1966.1050645964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> It appears (from some not terribly scientific experiments - see below)
> that it's likely to be related to managing the deferred trigger queue
> given that in my case at least running the constraints non-deferred was
> negligible in comparison.
At one time the deferred-trigger queue had an O(N^2) behavioral problem
for large N = number of pending trigger events. But I thought we'd
fixed that. What's the test case exactly? Can you get a profile with
gprof?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-18 06:19:57 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-18 06:03:26 | Re: pg 7.3.2 assert statement fails. process terminated |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-18 06:25:20 | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-18 05:30:45 | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |