On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've marked this patch committed, although in the end there was nothing
left of it ;-)
Thank you, Dean and Tom!
I'm sorry for not participating in this thread, I've been away for the past
five weeks and have much catching up
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
On 12 February 2012 02:06, Vik Reykja vikrey...@gmail.com wrote:
I decided to take a crack at the todo item created from the following post:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
Here's my review of this patch.
On 17 June 2012 18:30, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Dean Rasheed wrote:
in HEAD:
... (actual time=1390.037..1390.037 rows=0 loops=1)
Trigger for constraint fk_table_e_fkey: time=210.184 calls=9
Total runtime: 1607.626 ms
With this patch:
...
On 17 June 2012 18:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed
dean.a.rash...@gmail.comwrote:
I find it interesting that 'actual time' for top level 'Update on fk_table'
is always higher in patched
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
I think that the patch already covers the most common use case (in my
experience) but we may as well get as much out of it as we can while
we're here.
Yeah. The cases involving nulls are probably really rather unlikely
altogether, but it seems a
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.comwrote:
Then in HEAD:
EXPLAIN ANALYSE UPDATE fk_table SET b=b+1, c=c+1, d=d+1;
QUERY PLAN
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Dean Rasheed wrote:
in HEAD:
... (actual time=1390.037..1390.037 rows=0 loops=1)
Trigger for constraint fk_table_e_fkey: time=210.184 calls=9
Total runtime: 1607.626 ms
With this patch:
... (actual time=1489.640..1489.640 rows=0 loops=1)
[no triggers fired]
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.comwrote:
I find it interesting that 'actual time' for top level 'Update on fk_table'
is always higher in patched versions, and yet the 'Total runtime' is lower
for the patched
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
I figured that the trigger time was counted separately.
Yeah, it is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 12 February 2012 02:06, Vik Reykja vikrey...@gmail.com wrote:
I decided to take a crack at the todo item created from the following post:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
The attached patch makes the desired changes in both code and function
naming.
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
BTW, I had no problems applying both the original patch and Chetan
Suttraway's version. The only difference between the patches seems to
be that the original is in context format, and Chetan Suttraway's is
in unified format.
Which format do
On 16 June 2012 18:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com writes:
BTW, I had no problems applying both the original patch and Chetan
Suttraway's version. The only difference between the patches seems to
be that the original is in context format, and Chetan
12 matches
Mail list logo
