Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Joe Van Dyk <joe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I was expecting that the RI update triggers would have a "when (new.key is >> distinct from old.key)" condition on them, which would mean that the number >> of referencing tables wouldn't matter. > But that condition is checked for each constraint individually, not for all > constraints simultaneously. A table can be referenced on multiple > combinations of columns, so just one check may not suffice. I guess the > triggers could be organized into groups of identical firing criteria and > then checked only once per group, but that seems like a pretty obscure > optimization to make. I don't know how you would reorganize such groupings > in a concurrency safe way when constraints were added or removed. FWIW, I profiled this example (after cranking it up to 500 target tables just because). AFAICT the primary component of the runtime increase is query startup overhead associated with the increased number of target tables. If the UPDATE were touching more than one tuple then it might get to the point where per-tuple costs dominate, but it's not there in this example. If we tried to do something like what Jeff suggests to improve the per-tuple costs, it could actually make this example slower by adding more startup overhead. regards, tom lane
