Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 09:55 PM 2/2/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >There is also a nontrivial performance penalty that would be paid
> >for reversing this default, because then every ordinary SQL query
> >would suffer the overhead of looking to see whether there are
> >child tables for each table named in the query. That *really*
> >doesn't strike me as a good idea.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, because my first reaction to
> the proposal was "what's the overhead for SQL users"?
I just did a performance check on this. I found that the overhead
is one tenth of a millisecond on a Sun desktop workstation. Pretty
trivial, and I'm sure it can be improved.
