Re: a question for the way-back machine

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: a question for the way-back machine
Date: 2006-12-13 22:05:52
Message-ID: 20061213220552.GG15546@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:01:46PM -0800, Ben wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> >>- 7.3 isn't smart enough to use an index on an insert? Seems unlikely.
> >
> >This question makes no sense, you don't need an index to insert.
>
> Wouldn't it need to check the unique constraint (an index on the table)
> before the insert can succeed? It seems like it would be better to check
> the index than to do a full table scan to try to satisfy that constraint.

When you insert a tuple, it needs to be inserted into the index, yes. There
is no way an insert can cause a sequential scan, except by some trigger
defined on the table.

> >Are you sure it's not due to some foreign key check?
>
> No, but it seems unlikely, given that the vast majority of activity is
> inserts into a single table, and that this table has massive amounts of
> sequential scans according to pg_stat_user_tables.

You're not doing a select within the insert statement are you?

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-13 22:10:59 Re: plperl exception catching
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-13 22:04:42 Re: plperl exception catching