| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
| Date: | 2003-04-19 20:58:02 |
| Message-ID: | 23461.1050785882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> The hack was just the keeping around the list pointer from the last run
> through (see attached - passed simple fk tests and regression, but there
> might be problems I don't see).
Shouldn't this patch update the comment in deferredTriggerInvokeEvents
(c. line 1860 in cvs tip)?
> Looking at the code, I also wonder if we
> would get some gain by not allocating the per_tuple_context at the
> beginning but only when a non-deferred constraint is found since otherwise
> we're creating and destroying the context and possibly never using it.
I doubt it's worth worrying over. Creation/destruction of a never-used
memory context is pretty cheap, I think.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | You Lun | 2003-04-19 22:35:37 | Priority queue of tuples in PostgreSQL source code. |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-19 19:03:02 | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-20 01:13:37 | Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-19 20:26:49 | Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used |