From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
Date: | 2007-11-29 17:19:42 |
Message-ID: | 474EF4AE.8010405@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> A trigger
>> will probably beat a rule for inserts/updates involving a small number
>> of rows.
>
> Which is exactly what partitioning is doing.
>
> For large numbers of rows, like an INSERT/SELECT from another
>> large table, the rule is likely to win, because its overhead is paid
>> once per query not once per row. Also, if you implement the trigger
>> with an EXECUTE (forcing a planning cycle) intead of hard-coded
>> commands, the speed advantage becomes even more dubious.
>
> Not for partitioning. Although I agree with your sentiments for normal
> operation.
>
>
Joshua, you're not making much sense here.
Tom is talking about partitioning and his analysis is correct *in the
partitioning case* AFAICS.
What basis do you have for saying he is not?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-11-29 17:29:51 | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-29 17:13:59 | Re: Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-11-29 17:29:51 | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-29 17:13:59 | Re: Partition: use triggers instead of rules |