From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | David Gagnon <dgagnon(at)siunik(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why the planner is not using the INDEX . |
Date: | 2005-07-05 01:13:30 |
Message-ID: | 42C9DEBA.4000905@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> I'm a bit surprised of that behavior thought, since it means that if we
> delete a row from table A all tables (B,C,D) with FK pointing to this
> table (A) must be scanned.
> If there is no index on those tables it means we gone do all Sequantial
> scans. Than can cause significant performance problem!!!.
Correct.
> Is there a reason why implicit index aren't created when FK are
> declared.
Because it's not a requirement...
> I looked into the documentation and I haven't found a way to
> tell postgresql to automatically create an index when creating la FK.
> Does it means I need to manage it EXPLICITLY with create index statement
> ? Is there another way ?
No other way - you need to explicitly create them. It's not that hard
either to write a query to search the system catalogs for unindexed FK's.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-07-05 12:32:17 | Re: Why the planner is not using the INDEX . |
Previous Message | David Gagnon | 2005-07-05 00:29:50 | Re: Why the planner is not using the INDEX . |