On 11 Mar 2004 at 2:01, Tom Lane wrote:
Fred Moyer <fred@redhotpenguin.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 15:30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A while, sure, but 2 hours seems excessive to me too.
> If there are no foreign keys or triggers and updating each row is taking
> one drive seek ( approximately 9 ms with the 80 gig IDE drive being used
> here ) then to do 747524 seeks will take 6727716 ms, about 10% less than
> the time of 7628686 ms for the update above. Is this is an accurate
> estimate or are these numbers just coincidence?
Probably coincidence. There's no reason to think that a large UPDATE
would expend one disk seek per updated row on average --- there's
enough
buffering between the UPDATE and the drive heads that under normal
circumstances the cost should be lots less.
If I had to bet at this point I'd bet on inefficient foreign-key checks,
but since we haven't seen any schema details that's purely
speculation.
regards, tom lane
There are no foreign-keys in this table. What schema details do you
need, then I can give it to you. I am a new user of postgreSQL so I am
not clude-up with all of the stuff.
________________________________________________________
__
Bobbie van der Westhuizen
Quantitative Animal Breeding (BLUP)
ARC - Animal Improvement Institute
+27-12-672-9128 (o/h)
+27-12-665-1419 (fax)
bobbie@irene.agric.za
________________________________________________________
__