From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |
Date: | 2003-08-15 15:33:21 |
Message-ID: | 3F3CFD41.7020508@pse-consulting.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Andreas Pflug wrote:
>
>
>
>>Stephan Szabo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>That really needs to be rewritten to do a single check over the table
>>>rather than running the constraint for every row. I keep meaning to get
>>>around to it and never actually do. :( I'm not sure that in practice
>>>you'll get a better plan at restore time depending on what the default
>>>statistics give you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This is clearly a case for a statement level trigger, as soon as
>>affected rows can be identified.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I think single inserts might be more expensive (because the query is
>more involved for the table joining case) using a statement level trigger,
>so we'd probably want to profile the cases.
>
>
This really depends. If a constraint is just a check on the
inserted/updated column, so no other row needs to be checked, there's no
faster way then the current row trigger. But FK constraints need to
execute a query to retrieve the referenced row, and every RDBMS prefers
to execute a single statement with many rows over many statements with a
single row, because the first will profit from optimization. And even if
only a single row is inserted or updated, there's still the need to
lookup the reference.
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-08-15 15:34:14 | Re: join of array |
Previous Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-08-15 15:32:03 | Re: Why the duplicate messages to pgsql-general? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-15 16:53:05 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-15 15:22:16 | Behavior of equality_oper and ordering_oper |