| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Rofail <markm(dot)rofail(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |
| Date: | 2017-07-27 10:54:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsLD1t2pTvzzdSgod73jipuEwLAr0vizF6CsmGsi2Wp0Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Mark Rofail <markm(dot)rofail(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have written some benchmark test.
>
> With two tables a PK table with 5 rows and an FK table with growing row
> count.
>
> Once triggering an RI check
> at 10 rows,
> 100 rows,
> 1,000 rows,
> 10,000 rows,
> 100,000 rows and
> 1,000,000 rows
>
How many rows of FK table were referencing the PK table row you're
updating/deleting.
I wonder how may RI trigger work so fast if it has to do some job besides
index search with no results?
I think we should also vary the number of referencing rows.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-27 11:02:39 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-27 10:39:51 | Re: asynchronous execution |