| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert |
| Date: | 2009-01-19 08:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0901190022j386599b6i48062011ed99032@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2009/1/19 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Yes, but what about a table with an update trigger on it that does
> some interesting bit of housekeeping when rows are updated?
exactly, that's another one of reasons why I wouldn't write that patch :P
> It's a prime example of fixing a problem created by not knowing how
> the database works, and creating a possible problem for people who do
> know how it works.
Like I said, I was just daydreaming right after getting out of bed.
Forgive me, also - I do know how it works, but it is interesting to
explore such options sometimes - to learn that the simple design of db
is the best possible :)
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2009-01-19 11:36:25 | too smart update (was: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert) |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-01-19 08:18:35 | Re: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert |