On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Igor Neyman wrote:
> All indices need to be updated, because Postgres does not do "upgrade in
> place", like some other databases do.
> When any column is updated, new version of the row created and the old
> one marked as deleted.
>
If you qualify for a HOT upda
> -Original Message-
> From: Alban Hertroys [mailto:dal...@solfertje.student.utwente.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:38 AM
> To: sunpeng
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: are there any method that "Update" command not
> affect other unrelated indices?
>
> On
On 13 Oct 2010, at 24:03, sunpeng wrote:
> Hi, I have the following table:
> CREATE TABLE A
> (
>a1 integer not null,
>a2 integer,
>a3 integer,
>a4 integer
> )
> and have the following four indices:
> create index ind_a1 on A USING gist(a1);
> create index ind_a2 on A USING gist(
On 13 Oct 2010, at 24:03, sunpeng wrote:
> Hi, I have the following table:
> CREATE TABLE A
> (
>a1 integer not null,
>a2 integer,
>a3 integer,
>a4 integer
> )
> and have the following four indices:
> create index ind_a1 on A USING gist(a1);
> create index ind_a2 on A USING gist(
Thanks. I could give more clues.
The call stack of the function most consumed time is:
Thread [1] (Suspended)
34 ExecInsertIndexTuples()
/home/postgres/develop/postgresql-snapshot/src/backend/executor/execUtils.c:1046
0x08201e66
33 ExecUpdate()
/home/postgres/develop/postgresql-snapshot/src
Well, the objects indices 1,2,3 point to changed when you changed column a4,
but I don't know if that's the reason. I would guess that the indices are
structured as pointers of some kind though.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:03 AM, sunpeng wrote:
>
> the question is why all four indices updated in t
Hi, I have the following table:
CREATE TABLE A
(
a1 integer not null,
a2 integer,
a3 integer,
a4 integer
)
and have the following four indices:
create index ind_a1 on A USING gist(a1);
create index ind_a2 on A USING gist(a2);
create index ind_a3 on A USING gist(a3);
create index ind_a4
