On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tom Lane 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 to do.
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 12 February 2012 02:06, Vik Reykja 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.
I've marked this patch committed, althoug
Dean Rasheed 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 tad silly to fix only s
On 17 June 2012 18:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh writes:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed
>> wrote:
>> 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 patche
On 17 June 2012 18:30, Kevin Grittner 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:
>>> ... (actu
"Kevin Grittner" 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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Gurjeet Singh writes:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 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 versions. I would've expected 'Total runtime' to
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 trigg
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
Then in HEAD:
> EXPLAIN ANALYSE UPDATE fk_table SET b=b+1, c=c+1, d=d+1;
>
> QUERY PLAN
>
>
On 16 June 2012 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed 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
Dean Rasheed 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 hackers actually prefer?
11 matches
Mail list logo
