Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was looking at that last night. It seems like we could add a LIMIT at
>> least in some contexts. In the case at hand, we're just going to error
>> out immediately if we find a matching row, and so there's no need for
>> FOR UPDATE, is there?
> I think there still is, because a not yet committed transaction could have
> deleted them all in which case I think the correct behavior is to wait and
> if that transaction commits allow the action and if it rolls back to
> error.
Good point. Okay, we can't put in a LIMIT. But we could still hack the
planner to prefer a fast-start plan by passing an out-of-band tuple
fraction, for those RI plans where it's appropriate. That would not
affect correctness.
>> However, I'm not sure it would help the OP anyway. With the stats he
>> had, the planner would still take a seqscan, because it's going to
>> expect that it can find a match by probing the first ten or so rows of
>> the first page. With anything close to the normal cost parameters,
>> that's going to look more expensive than an index probe.
s/more expensive/less expensive/ ... need more caffeine obviously ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
