Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-27 Thread Per Kaminsky
less performant than recreating the FK constraint? If executed on 100k or even 1m rows the operation takes hours or even days. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Per Kaminsky

Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-28 Thread Per Kaminsky
TE "B" SET type = 2 WHERE type ISNULL; ALTER TABLE "B" ADD CONSTRAINT "B_to_A_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (ref_a) REFERENCES A(id); ____ From: Adrian Klaver Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 23:22 To: Per Kaminsky ; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org Sub

Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-28 Thread Per Kaminsky
o_A_fkey: time=27246.413 calls=1000',) ('Execution Time: 35884.978 ms',) The tables have Index on each other. The vacuum can not be called, since all those table modifications are part of one big transaction to be able to make a rollback on any problem without causing an abnormal da

Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-28 Thread Per Kaminsky
Kaminsky ; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column On 3/28/22 00:22, Per Kaminsky wrote: > Sorry, i forgot to add the following: > > Explain / Analyze for the last "update type on B" call, normally there > th

Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-28 Thread Per Kaminsky
transaction (which i don't know if that is the case). From: Adrian Klaver Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 17:59 To: Per Kaminsky ; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org ; Tom Lane Subject: Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column On 3/

Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column

2022-03-28 Thread Per Kaminsky
___ From: Adrian Klaver Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 18:49 To: Per Kaminsky ; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance issues on FK Triggers after replacing a primary column On 3/27/22 23:53, Per Kaminsky wrote: > The table structure looks (roughly) like this: &g