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

Re: Suggestions on an update query

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggestions on an update query
Date: 2007-10-30 05:19:42
Message-ID: dcc563d10710292219h414a607ft9e719b33e1981b0d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 10/29/07, Campbell, Lance <lance(at)uiuc(dot)edu> wrote:
> Thanks for all of your help. The problem was that the result_entry table
> had some constraints that pointed to a third table.  When I removed
> those constraints the performance was amazing.  The update took less
> than seven minutes to execute.  I did not even consider the fact that
> constraints to another table would impact the performance.

Usually you can put an index on the refrerenced key in the foreign
table to speed things up.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2007-10-30 05:46:22
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2007-10-30 05:06:02
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1

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