From: ow <oneway_111@yahoo.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20040213010341.95282.qmail@web60801.mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25331.1076632978@sss.pgh.pa.us>
--- Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> According to this entry, your small_id column only contains the ten
> values 1..10, roughly evenly distributed. So why are you probing for
> 239??
Let's say we have City (small) and Person (large) tables. A new city was added
(mistakenly) with id=239, it does not have any "persons" assigned yet. Hence,
we want to remove the wrong "city" record.
In any case, one can't remove record from "small" unless there are NO records
in "large", RI will not allow it. The initial problem was that I tried to
delete a record from "small" and it was taking about 3 min to do that.
> The planner is certainly going to estimate a probe for an unspecified
> value as retrieving 10% of the table, and under that assumption it's
> quite right to use a seqscan.
Sounds pretty bad for my case. Any way to avoid the 10% scan?
Thanks
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: oneway_111@yahoo.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: 7.4 - FK constraint performance
In-Reply-To: <20040213010341.95282.qmail@web60801.mail.yahoo.com>
* 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