From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sebastian Böck <sebastianboeck(at)freenet(dot)de> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Update on tables when the row doesn't change |
Date: | 2005-05-24 21:14:14 |
Message-ID: | 5744.1116969254@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sebastian_B=F6ck?= <sebastianboeck(at)freenet(dot)de> writes:
> Why does Postgres perform updates to tables, even if the row doesn't
> change at all?
Because testing for this would almost surely be a net loss for the vast
majority of applications. Checking to see if the new row value exactly
equals the old is hardly a zero-cost operation; if you pay that on every
update, that's a lot of overhead that you are hoping to make back by
sometimes avoiding the physical store of the new tuple. In most
applications I think the "sometimes" isn't going to be often enough
to justify doing it.
If you have a particular table in a particular app where it is worth it,
I'd recommend writing a BEFORE UPDATE trigger to make the comparisons
and suppress the update when NEW and OLD are equal.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dino Vliet | 2005-05-24 21:32:38 | reporting solution for postgresql |
Previous Message | Sebastian Böck | 2005-05-24 20:45:49 | Re: Update on tables when the row doesn't change |