Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Chris St Denis <lists(at)on-track(dot)ca>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance?
Date: 2009-06-25 05:45:19
Message-ID: 1245908719.19608.4.camel@tillium.localnet (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 21:03 -0700, Chris St Denis wrote:
> This sounds like something that should just be on by default, not a 
> trigger. Is there some reason it would waste the io of writing a new row 
> to disk if nothing has changed? or is it just considered too much 
> unnecessary overhead to compare them?

I think the theory is that carefully written applications generally do
not generate redundant updates in the first place. An application that
avoids redundant updates should not have to pay the cost of redundant
update detection and elimination.

-- 
Craig Ringer


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-06-25 06:55:40
Subject: Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance?
Previous:From: Chris St DenisDate: 2009-06-25 04:03:08
Subject: Re: tsvector_update_trigger performance?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group