David Johnston writes:
> As noted in the referenced thread (and never contradicted) the current
> algorithm is "for each record does the value in the FK column exist in the
> PK table?" not "do all of the values currently found on the FK table exist
> in the PK table?".
Well, apparently nobody wh
Ben Hoyt wrote
> * http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> 51A11C97.90209@
> --
> indicates that the db ignores the index when add constraints
As noted in the referenced thread (and never contradicted) the current
algorithm is "for each record does the value in the FK column exist in the
PK tab
Hi folks,
We're adding a foreign key constraint to a 20-million row table on our
production database, and it's taking about 7 minutes. Because it's an
ALTER TABLE, Postgres acquires an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock that prevents
any reads/writes (though this particular table is very write-heavy, so
even a
Jim Nasby writes:
> Is there a way to measure memory consumption during planning, short of
> something like strace? (I've got no dev tools available on our servers.)
Nothing built-in, I'm pretty sure. You could probably add some
instrumentation, but that would require running modified executabl
On 10/29/13 1:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
smaller/slower than most current hardware.
I think a
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jim Nasby writes:
>>> I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
>> Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
>> smaller/slower than most current hardware.
>>
>> I think also that the collapse l
On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
smaller/slower than most current hardware.
I think also that the collapse limits were invented mainly to keep p
Jim Nasby writes:
> I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
smaller/slower than most current hardware.
I think also that the collapse limits were invented mainly to keep people
out of GEQO's clutches, but we've
On 10/29/13 9:10 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
I've been working on trying to normalize a table that's got a bunch of text
fields. Normalizing the first 4 has been a non-issue. But when I try and
normalize 2 additional fields a
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> I've been working on trying to normalize a table that's got a bunch of text
>> fields. Normalizing the first 4 has been a non-issue. But when I try and
>> normalize 2 additional fields a bunch of query plans go belly-up.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
