| From: | JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: TRUNCATE TABLE table RESTRICT |
| Date: | 2000-06-12 21:41:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200006122141.XAA24946@hot.jw.home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Sorry to ask for another favor, but what does Oracle do here? If
> a referring table has 1,000,000 rows in it which have been
> deleted but not vacuumed, what would the performance implications
> be?
Referential integrity has no performance impact on VACUUM. If
that's what you aren't sure about.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-12 22:40:42 | Re: Rel 7.0beta5: view on table* crashes backend |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-06-12 21:36:19 | Re: [Fwd: PostgreSQL RPMS...] |