| 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, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
| Date: | 2003-04-18 06:06:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1966.1050645964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> It appears (from some not terribly scientific experiments - see below)
> that it's likely to be related to managing the deferred trigger queue
> given that in my case at least running the constraints non-deferred was
> negligible in comparison.
At one time the deferred-trigger queue had an O(N^2) behavioral problem
for large N = number of pending trigger events. But I thought we'd
fixed that. What's the test case exactly? Can you get a profile with
gprof?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-04-18 06:19:57 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-18 06:03:26 | Re: pg 7.3.2 assert statement fails. process terminated |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-18 06:25:20 | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-04-18 05:30:45 | Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance |