From: | Kevin Hunter <hunteke(at)earlham(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | andy <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SQL spec/implementation question: UPDATE |
Date: | 2007-10-22 05:51:44 |
Message-ID: | 471C3A70.2020804@earlham.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 6:52p -0400 on 21 Oct 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> andy <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> writes:
>> I think your comparing apples and oranges. I'll bet that mysql is
>> taking a shortcut and testing the value before updating it.
>
>> The update is probably more close to:
>> update test set name = 'kevin' where passion = 'soccer' and name <> 'kevin';
>
> Yeah, that seems to be what they're doing. PG does not bother to make
> such a test, on the grounds that it would waste more net cycles than it
> would save. Most people are not in the habit of issuing lots of no-op
> updates.
Makes sense. In this particular case, it's a moot point as it's
guaranteed to update a single row only (or less), but I was idly
curious. In fact, for the application in question, having the behavior
of Postgres would make it possible to clean up the application logic a
bit, but eh. I'm stuck with MySQL for this project. :-(
Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Hunter | 2007-10-22 05:55:49 | Re: SQL spec/implementation question: UPDATE |
Previous Message | Kevin Hunter | 2007-10-22 05:51:33 | Re: SQL spec/implementation question: UPDATE |