Re: Perfornamce Q

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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