On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 09:55 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >>> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> >>> If it were this simple a change, I'm not certain why (I believe) PG
> >>>is checking each and every row to see if it will fit into the new column
> >>> definition/type.
> >Because the code that does the ALTER TYPE is very generic, and it
> > doesn't (yet) have an optimization that tells it to skip the check
> > and the possible table rewrite in the cases where it's obviously not
> >needed(like this one).
> If there's some low-hanging fruit here, +1 for getting that.
I just tested this out and everything seems to be working fine. (cross
fingers - for now and if I do report back, it means we've crashed and
burned, but as of now... the low hanging fruit is tasty)
This 2 sec change is much preferred over the 3+ hour per table.
I agree with Tom that this is not useful in _all_ cases and may seem to
look like a hack, but it really isn't. Given that the condition that
we're expaning the min length rather than the opposite, it should be
Guys(/gals) Thanks very much for brightening up a dreadry Monday
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ramasubramanian||Date: 2008-07-14 05:59:24|
|Subject: Trigger is taking time to fire|
|Previous:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 2008-07-12 14:30:44|
|Subject: Re: how to estimate shared_buffers...|