From: | Daniel Åkerud <zilch(at)home(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Foreign Keys Constraints, perforamance analysis |
Date: | 2001-06-25 16:37:02 |
Message-ID: | 012001c0fd95$107c9b50$c901a8c0@automatic100 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > OK, I've been discussing this with a collegue of mine... and I'm
starting to
> > see the light here...
> >
> > I will, first of all, make a new, simpler, 1<->1 realtionship to test FK
> > constraints... no 2<->1<->2 relasionship here...
> >
> > Person -> Item/item_fkc
> >
> > And I will do no bulk-delete. Instead these tests:
> >
> > Fill person. no time measuring.
> > Fill item, no foreign keys constraints, time measuring.
> > Fill item, foreign keys constraints
> > Compare last to measurments. How much do you loose in performance having
the
> > Foreign Key check?
> > For all persons {
> > if (fkc)
> > delete from person where id = $id
> > else
> > delete from person where id = $id; delete from item where
personid=$id
> > }
> > Compare measurements. How much do you loose having the foreign keys
> > constraints delete the item?
> >
> > This, I think, this is a more fair comparison.
> >
> > Can you call the FK itself a foreign key constraint, as it actually is
> > constraining something?
>
> Yeah, that's a more even test. Since it sounds like you're writing
> something on foreign key constraints (presumably about postgres), you
> might want to mention the differences with table clearing deletes
> but point out the foreign key constraints aren't generally used in
> schemas where you're doing that :)
>
> As for naming, I'd think so. It is a constraint, just that
> "foreign key constraint" is much longer to type than FK :)
>
Thanks :)
Daniel Åkerud
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Clift | 2001-06-25 16:42:30 | Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Daniel Åkerud | 2001-06-25 16:34:59 | Re: MySQL comparison |