| From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why would this use 600Meg of VM? |
| Date: | 2001-06-24 05:45:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20010624154552.0234ae00@mail.rhyme.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 01:06 24/06/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>The answer: the query has nothing to do with it. However, the
>deferred triggers you have on the target relation have a lot to do
>with it. It's all deferred-trigger-event storage.
Would it be worth using a local (system) temporary table for this sort of
thing?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2001-06-24 06:57:07 | Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-24 05:06:03 | Re: Why would this use 600Meg of VM? |