From: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce1@obviously.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very slow updates when using IN syntax subselect
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:27:37 -0800
Message-ID: <43F0C189.2050501@obviously.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <744.1139704657@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <43ECFF0B.80905@obviously.com>
<7972.1139672862@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<43EE3F77.6020108@obviously.com>
<200602112134.57572.peter_e@gmx.net>
<744.1139704657@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>>
>>> They occur in finite time. That's good, thanks. But jeeze, can't
>>> postgres figure this out for itself?
>>>
>> I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if PostgreSQL did a full table scan
>> before each query to figure out the total size of the involved tables.
>>
>
> It's also less than polite to complain about the behavior of
> two-year-old releases, without making any effort to ascertain
> whether more-current versions are smarter.
>
Sorry to offend. Are current versions smarter?
The DB I was working with still had row counts of 1 after tens of thousands
of records had been added.
With new versions, must the DB still be VACUUMED, or is that a bit
more automatic?
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: bryce1@obviously.com
Subject: Re: Very slow updates when using IN syntax subselect
In-Reply-To: <43F0C189.2050501@obviously.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