| From: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Perfornamce Q |
| Date: | 2003-01-23 05:35:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3E2F7F1F.5050504@mega-bucks.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think it's the foreign keys that are hurting you. Are the referenced
> columns indexed?
They should be, they are all primary keys in the referenced tables.
But why would they be hurting me? The update is on a column that has no
constraints on it. If the foreign key constraints are hurting me I don't
understand the reason ... could you explain why?
> Are they of the same datatypes as the referencing
> columns?
They must be no? Otherwise how could they be foreign key constraints?
(And I just checked and yes they are of the same type).
> Have you ANALYZEd those tables lately?
In the output I gave the first thing I did was a "vacuum full analyze".
I have actually found that the time require usually goes *up* strangely
enough after doing a vacuum full analyze though ...
Jc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2003-01-23 05:40:30 | Re: [HACKERS] C++ coding assistance request for a visualisation tool |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-23 05:25:49 | Re: Perfornamce Q |