Re: Foreign Keys Constraints, perforamance analysis
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Foreign Keys Constraints, perforamance analysis |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8638.993325815@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Foreign Keys Constraints, perforamance analysis (Daniel Åkerud <zilch@home.se>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Daniel_=C5kerud?= <zilch@home.se> writes: > Deleting really showed what the MySQL team means. The deletion was sometime= > s 30 seconds to < 1 second. Well, if I understand your rather vague description, you're comparing a simple bulk delete of all the tuples in the tables, versus a case where one table sees a bulk delete but the other ones see retail deletion (one tuple deleted per triggered query, and that tuple has to be searched for via an indexscan). Not surprising that it's much slower. The real question is what this scenario has to do with production activities. > If anyone could help, I would really appriciate if someone could tell me wh= > y the child/child_fkc difference was so much more than the married/married_= > fkc difference... That strikes me as odd too, since the one case has only one FK reference and the other has two ... seems like it should have been the other way 'round. Experimental noise maybe? Did you repeat the test to make sure the numbers were reproducible? Do you care to post all the details (scripts etc) so that others can try to reproduce it? > I doubt is was becuase of the lack of VACUUM ANALYSE. You *should* be worried about that. The queries triggered by foreign-key checks are planned by the regular planner. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: