| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2000-02-03 06:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | 38991B2B.939F93CC@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 09:55 PM 2/2/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >There is also a nontrivial performance penalty that would be paid
> >for reversing this default, because then every ordinary SQL query
> >would suffer the overhead of looking to see whether there are
> >child tables for each table named in the query. That *really*
> >doesn't strike me as a good idea.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, because my first reaction to
> the proposal was "what's the overhead for SQL users"?
I just did a performance check on this. I found that the overhead
is one tenth of a millisecond on a Sun desktop workstation. Pretty
trivial, and I'm sure it can be improved.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathijs Brands | 2000-02-03 06:25:15 | Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-02-03 05:38:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathijs Brands | 2000-02-03 06:25:15 | Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | O Nubeiro | 2000-02-03 05:52:33 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mathijs Brands | 2000-02-03 06:25:15 | Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-02-03 05:38:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |