From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: mark <dvlhntr@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Deferred constraints performance impact ?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:42:10 -0700
Message-ID: <1344811330.19209.27.camel@jdavis> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01a701cd661f$3cc05770$b6410650$@com>
References: <01a701cd661f$3cc05770$b6410650$@com>
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 20:27 -0600, mark wrote:
> I understand a lot more may have to be tracked through a transaction and
> there could be some impact from that. Similar to an after update trigger? Or
> are the two not comparable in terms of impact from what is tracked and then
> checked.
They should be very comparable to AFTER triggers. It's actually a little
better because there are optimizations to avoid queuing constraint
checks if we know it will pass.
I would recommend testing a few degenerate cases to see how big the
impact is, and try to see if that is reasonable for your application.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, dvlhntr@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Deferred constraints performance impact ?
In-Reply-To: <1344811330.19209.27.camel@jdavis>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox