On May 28, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Tomasz Rybak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I tried to use COPY to import 27M rows to table:
CREATE TABLE sputnik.ccc24 (
station CHARACTER(4) NOT NULL REFERENCES
sputnik.station24 (id),
m
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 22:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> This is expected to take lots of memory because each row-requiring-check
> > >> generates an e
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 18:17 -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > AFAICS we must aggregate the trigger checks. We would need a special
> > property of triggers that allowed them to be aggregated when two similar
> > checks arrived. We can then use hash aggr
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We certainly need a TODO item for "improve RI checks during bulk
>> operations".
> I have a feeling it's already there. Hm. There's a whole section on RI
> triggers but the closest I see is this, neither of th
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAICS we must aggregate the trigger checks. We would need a special
> property of triggers that allowed them to be aggregated when two similar
> checks arrived. We can then use hash aggregation to accumulate them. We
> might conceivably need to spill t
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This is expected to take lots of memory because each row-requiring-check
> >> generates an entry in the pending trigger event list.
>
> > Hm, it occurs to
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This is expected to take lots of memory because each row-requiring-check
>>> generates an entry in the pending trigger event list.
>
>> Hm, it occurs to me that we could
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is expected to take lots of memory because each row-requiring-check
>> generates an entry in the pending trigger event list.
> Hm, it occurs to me that we could still do a join against the pending event
> tr
[moving to -hackers]
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tomasz Rybak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I tried to use COPY to import 27M rows to table:
>> CREATE TABLE sputnik.ccc24 (
>> station CHARACTER(4) NOT NULL REFERENCES sputnik.station24 (id),
>> moment INTEGER NOT N
