On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you are talking about automatically doing this for every table - I > have an objection that the performance impact seems unwarranted against > the gain. We are still talking about every insert or update updating > some counter table, with the only mitigating factor being that the > trigger would be coded deeper into PostgreSQL theoretically making it > cheaper? >
No, I am not suggesting that. If you read proposal carefully, its one UPDATE per transaction. With HOT, I am hoping that the counter table may be completely cached in memory and won't bloat much. Also, we can always have a GUC (like pgstats) to control the overhead. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
