Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would to repeatably update non indexed column of temp table. I > expected cheap operation, but it isn't true. You're updating the row 100000 times within a single transaction. I don't *think* HOT will reclaim a version of a row until the transaction which completed it is done and no other transactions can see that version any longer. It does raise the question, though -- couldn't a HOT update of a tuple *which was written by the same transaction* do an "update in place"? I mean, the updating transaction doesn't need to see the old row after this, and other transactions shouldn't see it either. I suspect that somewhere in the subtransaction or referential integrity areas there may be some issues with that, but it would be a clever optimization if it could be pulled off. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
