DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=N3+z9bqtXc3sTLJt39xbIeemKrU1EnJyKYPSneVJnGpxJnpy9wZ2dxXfPTdM+c/Nv/dKrEn39ULK0GqdK0FrCf1UvhRDaTDQayv+OXmwwI193VZMUgvY9TaqmyuoafeKdJw8ZG3HIDaVGMTyZC8kigScEe+bv1zCuJFMfRKyG30=
Message-ID: <7a4208ef0803311823x55228b10k8f7996a4e7056229@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:23:00 +1300
From: "Ravi Chemudugunta" <chemuduguntar@gmail.com>
To: "Ravi Chemudugunta" <chemuduguntar@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance Implications of Using Exceptions
In-Reply-To: <20080401005235.GM4999@tamriel.snowman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7a4208ef0803311720s1dac8362gff2477d3dc534968@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080401005235.GM4999@tamriel.snowman.net>

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

>  In general I would recommend that you benchmark them using
>  as-close-to-real load as possible again as-real-as-possible data.

I am running a benchmark with around 900,000 odd records (real-load on
the live machine :o ) ... should show hopefully some good benchmarking
results for the two methods.

>  That would be in the eye of the beholder, generally.  Given the lack of
>  complexity, I don't think 'cleanness' in this case really matters all
>  that much.

I would like to make a comment that is that the only downside I saw of
using the exception approach was that if for some reason someone
forgot to add the unique constraint to the table, it would be a bit of
a nightmare-ness.  (I am porting some code into the server where the
schema does not have these constraints setup, only in the devel
database).

Will reply back with my conclusions, I am expecting a large difference.

Cheers,

ravi