Re: Trouble incrementing a column

Jeff Janes <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 4:47 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Note that you pay a fairly substantial performance penalty for deferring
>> the check, which is why it isn't the default, even though the SQL spec
>> says it ought to be.

> Do you know what the worst case scenario is for the performance of
> deferring the check to the end of the statement (with deferred initially
> immediate)?  Upon testing, I get a penalty of 2 to 5%, which seems pretty
> small, but I might not be testing the most adverse situation.  See attached.

Hm, I would have expected more, though not factor-of-10 or anything
like that.  But that's just vague recollection from when we put in
the feature.  I'm not surprised if the numbers have moved since.

> The main "cost" that prevents from using DII routinely is that they can't
> receive foreign key constraints.

Yeah, that's an issue.

			regards, tom lane