| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)zembu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-17 22:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.21.0107171507340.586-100000@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like a bad idea; it'll slow down deletes quite a lot, no? Do you
> really want to (for example) parse every SQL function in the system to
> see if it refers to a table being dropped? Why would we want to do that
> work over again for every such delete, rather than doing it once when
> an object is created and storing the info in a table? Also consider
> that what you are proposing is (at least) an O(N^2) algorithm when there
> are a large number of objects.
I think it's actually O(N^M) where there are N system objects and a chain
of M dependencies (A depends on B which depends on C => M = 3).
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-17 23:13:10 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-17 22:07:01 | Re: pg_depend |