| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Chris St Denis <lists(at)on-track(dot)ca>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 06:55:40 |
| Message-ID: | 8CFF6A2F-7D5D-4C4C-9734-E85884E32000@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Also consider on update triggers that you could want to run anyway
--
dim
Le 25 juin 2009 à 07:45, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> a
écrit :
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 21:03 -0700, Chris St Denis wrote:
>> This sounds like something that should just be on by default, not a
>> trigger. Is there some reason it would waste the io of writing a
>> new row
>> to disk if nothing has changed? or is it just considered too much
>> unnecessary overhead to compare them?
>
> I think the theory is that carefully written applications generally do
> not generate redundant updates in the first place. An application that
> avoids redundant updates should not have to pay the cost of redundant
> update detection and elimination.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Ivanov | 2009-06-25 18:18:31 | Re: Implications of having large number of users |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2009-06-25 05:45:19 | Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance? |