Re: Thoughts on how to avoid a massive integer update.

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Fehrle, Brian" <bfehrle(at)comscore(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on how to avoid a massive integer update.
Date: 2020-05-08 20:43:51
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYkvURpOY+pJSX53kEfmx6-xzJpLYdT9Au0Ppf3_Q34Wg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:41 PM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> My understanding is the keys in the info_table need to change. That
> causes the very expensive update in the update in the data tables. No?
>

The keys in the info_table need to change because their contents are no
longer legal to be stored (OP has not specified but think using an integer
value of someones social security number as a key). The FK side of the
relationship equality has the same illegal data values problem and need to
be changed too.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Sargent 2020-05-08 20:51:13 Re: Thoughts on how to avoid a massive integer update.
Previous Message Support 2020-05-08 20:42:04 Re: pg_basebackup cannot compress to STDOUNT