Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Andreas Pflug wrote:

> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >
> >>Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, I think single inserts might be more expensive (because the query is
> >>>more involved for the table joining case) using a statement level trigger,
> >>>so we'd probably want to profile the cases.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This really depends. If a constraint is just a check on the
> >>inserted/updated column, so no other row needs to be checked, there's no
> >>faster way then the current row trigger. But FK constraints need to
> >>execute a query to retrieve the referenced row, and every RDBMS prefers
> >>to execute a single statement with many rows over many statements with a
> >>single row, because the first will profit from optimization. And even if
> >>only a single row is inserted or updated, there's still the need to
> >>lookup the reference.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't think that addresses the issue I brought up. If you're doing a
> >bunch of single inserts:
> >begin;
> >insert into foo values (1);
> >insert into foo values (1);
> >insert into foo values (1);
> >insert into foo values (1);
> >insert into foo values (1);
> >end;
> >
> >Each of those statement triggers is still only going to be dealing with a
> >single row. If you're in immediate mode there's not much you can do about
> >that since the constraint is checked between inserts. If you're in
> >deferred mode, right now it won't help because it's not going to batch
> >them, it's going to be 5 statement triggers AFAICT each with its own 1 row
> >affected table.
> >
> >I believe that the more complicated join the old/new table with the pk
> >table and do the constraint check is going to be slightly slower than the
> >current row behavior for such cases because the trigger query is going to
> >be more complicated. What would be nice would be some way to choose
> >whether to use a single query per statement vs a simpler query per row
> >based on what's happening.
> >
>
> Deferring the constraint check would mean checking 5 single rows, right.
> But I still can't see why you think that a row level trigger would be
> cheaper in this case. I had a look at ri_triggers.c and what's coded
> there looks just as I expected, doing a query on the referenced table.
> the queries might look a bit different when checking multiple rows at
> once, but carefully designed I doubt that there would be a performance
> hit from this. In case it *is* significantly slower, single row updates

I don't know if there will be or not, but in one case it's a single table
select with constant values, in the other it's probably some kind of scan
and subselect. I'm just not going to rule out the possibility, so we
should profile it in large transactions with say 100k single inserts and
see.

> could be handled separately using the current triggers, and statement
> triggers for multiple rows. This would cover both scenarios best. At the

Yep. I'd wish that it could do it without actually needing to queue up
both triggers, but I don't know how if that'd be possible without tying
some knowledge of the fk functions deeper down.

> Best thing in the situation above would certainly be if all 5 rows would
> be checked in a single query, but that looks quite impossible because a
> mixture of inserts/updates/deletes on different tables might be deferred.

Yeah, the 5 above are pretty easy to show that it's safe, but other cases
and referential action cases won't necessarily be so easy.