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

Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2003-04-18 06:25:20
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2003-04-18 05:30:45
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin BrownDate: 2003-04-18 06:19:57
Subject: Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-18 06:03:26
Subject: Re: pg 7.3.2 assert statement fails. process terminated

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group