From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Aram Fingal <fingal(at)multifactorial(dot)com>, Postgres-General General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple indexes, huge table |
Date: | 2012-09-07 00:22:59 |
Message-ID: | 2376.1346977379@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> That sounds like you lack an index on the referencing column of the
>> foreign key constraint. Postgres doesn't require you to keep such
>> an index, but it's a really good idea if you ever update the referenced
>> column.
> For updating 20 million out of 500 million rows, wouldn't a full table
> scan generally be preferable to an index scan anyway?
Foreign key triggers do their checks retail, though, so you really want
the probe for any referencing rows for a particular row-being-updated
to be able to use an index.
(It would be nice if we could replace that with a mass revalidation
once it got to be a big fraction of the table, but we don't have a
mechanism for that. Yet.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amitabh Kant | 2012-09-07 01:21:18 | Re: PostgreSQL server embedded in NAS firmware? |
Previous Message | Alan Hodgson | 2012-09-07 00:12:29 | Re: Multiple indexes, huge table |