| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance |
| Date: | 2004-02-13 02:53:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1076640825.10896.12.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 20:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> ow <oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Sounds pretty bad for my case. Any way to avoid the 10% scan?
>
> Can't see how we optimize your case without pessimizing more-common cases.
> Sorry.
Statistics say there are 10 values. Statistics list the 10 most common
values (all of them). Given this, would it not be reasonable to assume
that 239 is a recent addition (if there at all) to the table and not
very common?
--
Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca>
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-02-13 04:20:53 | Re: Vacuum Delay feature |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-13 02:03:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum Delay feature |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-13 04:25:36 | Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance |
| Previous Message | David Witham | 2004-02-13 02:30:10 | Index question |