Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> We use DSPAM as one of our anti-spam options. Its UPDATE pattern is to
> increment a spam counter or a not-spam counter while keeping the user and
> token information the same. This would benefit from this optimization.
Would it? How wide is the "user and token" information?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Florian G. Pflug||Date: 2007-03-28 13:51:45|
|Subject: Re: Reduction in WAL for UPDATEs|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2007-03-28 13:33:50|
|Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring|