The data types are correct (we use serial/integer fields for the prime
and foreign key references).
Where I had gone wrong was in assuming that the slave foreign key
declaration created an index on that column on the slave table (it seems
to in Informix - where I'm converting from) - I have modified my table
create scripts to create the indexes explicitly. Conversion is looking
good so far!
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 20:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeremy Semeiks <jrs(at)farviolet(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:31:51AM +0100, Steve Tucknott wrote:
>> Am I right in assuming that a foreign key on a table does not explicity
>> create an index on that column on the foreign table?
> Adding the foreign key won't add the index itself, but I believe that
> foreign keys can only be declared on columns declared unique.
Right, the referenced column must have an index. However, the system
does not require the referencING column to have an index. This can be a
performance loss --- in particular when deleting records from the
referencED table, because the FK machinery then has to seqscan to see
if there are any matching referencING rows. If your master table is
pretty stable, though, you may not care enough to pay the costs of
keeping an index on the slave table.
You can also get burnt if the referenced and referencing columns aren't
of the exact same datatype --- again, not enforced by the system, but a
good way to shoot yourself in the foot performance-wise.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
DDI: 01903 828769
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Betsy Barker||Date: 2004-08-27 20:18:34|
|Subject: Re: pgsql functions and transactions?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-27 19:34:13|
|Subject: Re: pgsql functions and transactions? |