> Ok, if all 21 are affected, I can understand the problem. > But allow me to say that this is a "functional error"
It's a choice between total throughput on a high load, high connection basis (MVCC dramatically wins here), versus a single user, low load scenario (MS Access is designed for this). Believe me when I say that a lot of people have spent a lot of time explicitly making the system work that way. > On 13 Jun 2005, at 18:02, Richard Huxton wrote: > > Yves Vindevogel wrote: > I forgot cc > Begin forwarded message: > From: Yves Vindevogel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon 13 Jun 2005 17:45:19 CEST > To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Updates on large tables > are extremely slow > > Yes, but if I update one column, why should PG > update 21 indexes ? > There's only one index affected ! > > No - all 21 are affected. MVCC creates a new row on disk. > > -- > Richard Huxton > Archonet Ltd > > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > Bien à vous, > Kind regards, > > Yves Vindevogel > Implements > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91 > > Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76 > > Web: http://www.implements.be > > First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. > Then you win. > Mahatma Ghandi. > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
