From: | "Tim Vadnais" <tvadnais(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Update on tables when the row doesn't change |
Date: | 2005-05-25 15:41:23 |
Message-ID: | 20050525154129.52D115284B@svr1.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi All,
Can someone please address this aspect of Sebastian's email? I, too, am
interested in the response.
>> Why does Postgres perform an update on the table even
>> if no data changes?
>> Can I circumvent this behaviour of Postgres?
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Böck
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:06 AM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [GENERAL] Update on tables when the row doesn't change
Hi all,
Maybe it's a very silly question, but why does Postgres perform an update on
the table even if no data changes?
I recognized this recently doing a rewrite of my rules because they took to
long. I had many conditional rules I collapsed to one unconditional rule, so
that the views get constructed only once. If I split these updates to the
underlying tables, I get a lot of updates which don't perform any "real"
updates.
Can I circumvent this behaviour of Postgres only by defining lot of rules /
triggers on these underlying table are there some trickier ways?
Any help appreciated,
Sebastian
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-05-25 15:51:57 | Re: triggers/functions across databases |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-25 14:06:40 | Re: postmaster fails to start |