From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "maxxedit(at)gmail(dot)com" <maxxedit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: heap-only tuples, and constraints |
Date: | 2010-08-19 01:48:29 |
Message-ID: | 1282182509.31353.24.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 00:29 -0700, maxxedit(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
> Does this statement (UPDATE user SET email='newChangedVal',
> password='existingVal') requires updating an index on user.password?
> Or more generally, if an UPDATE includes an explicit but unchanged
> value for an index column, does postgres need to also update the index
> entries? Or does HOT apply only when indexed column is missing or not
> explicit (i.e. password=password)?
It does a binary comparison of the old/new values (for indexed columns),
and if they are identical, it allows a HOT update.
If a data type has two representations for the same value, that may mean
that it does a regular update when it could do a hot update. In other
words, it doesn't call a datatype-specific equality function.
> Along the same line of thought as above, if password is a foreign key
> column and if an UPDATE includes an explicit but unchanged value for
> this fk column, does postgres need to check constraint satisfiability?
No, it does not need to do the check.
In this case, however, it does appear that it uses a datatype-specific
equality function. So, even if you have a strange datatype where two
equal values can have different representations, it will still avoid the
check.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Palmer | 2010-08-19 02:13:47 | Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-08-18 23:58:08 | Re: Massively Parallel transactioning? |