From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: a question for the way-back machine |
Date: | 2006-12-14 17:35:47 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0612140932270.6762@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Interesting. Is that plan cached for the life of the session doing the
inserts, the life of the trigger, or until the database is restarted?
I guess I'm trying to figure out how to get the plan to re-cache, without
making it entirely dynamic.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Ben wrote:
>>> When you insert a tuple, it needs to be inserted into the index, yes.
>>> There
>>> is no way an insert can cause a sequential scan, except by some trigger
>>> defined on the table.
>>
>> Actually, as it happens, there *is* a trigger defined on the table to fire
>> before insert, but it too uses an index scan, at least according to
>> explain. Though, you'd think if it actually was using an index scan, that
>> would be showing up in pg_stat_user_tables, which it isn't. Might the fact
>> that the trigger is a plpgsql function be throwing it off and keeping it
>> from using more recent planner stats?
>
> The query-plan for the function will be compiled first time it is called.
> From that point on, it is fixed. It seems that is the source of your
> seq-scans.
>
> You can use the EXECUTE statement to construct a dynamic version of the
> query, which will be planned every time it is run.
>
> --
> Richard Huxton
> Archonet Ltd
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-12-14 17:47:08 | Re: could not write to log -> PANIC -> System down |
Previous Message | dev | 2006-12-14 17:28:08 | could not write to log -> PANIC -> System down |