From: | Benjamin Arai <me(at)benjaminarai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "PostgreSQL" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Restore v. Running COPY/INDEX seperatly |
Date: | 2007-10-15 19:34:36 |
Message-ID: | 48C98F54-E517-4208-80C7-D92856C55190@benjaminarai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
In what order should I :
- COPY data
- Create indexes
- Create Trigger
- Vaccum
?
Currently I am:
1. Create table
2 . Create trigger for updates
3. Create indexes including gin
4. Vaccum
Benjamin
On Aug 27, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Arai <me(at)benjaminarai(dot)com> writes:
>> Why is a trigger faster than doing a ALTER after table is created? I
>> thought a trigger would be slower because it would be invoked every
>> iteration (a new row is inserted) during the COPY process.
>
> Yeah, you'd have the trigger overhead, but the above argument ignores
> the costs of the full-table UPDATE --- not to mention the VACUUM
> you'll need after the UPDATE to clean up the dead rows.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lee Keel | 2007-10-15 20:16:40 | Re: Convert bytea to Float8 |
Previous Message | Carlo Stonebanks | 2007-10-15 19:23:59 | Re: Will UPDATE lock if FROM refers to target table? |