Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 474EE992.2050209@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules Re: [DOCS] Partition: use triggers instead of rules |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as >> flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic >> partitioning configuration but anything else they are extremely deficient. > > I think that the above claim is exceedingly narrow-minded. We are talking about partitioning. It is supposed to be narrow-minded. > 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. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: