--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com>
>
> Of course, if you're going to have a separate table then you might as well
> store the count in there and actually update it on every
> insert/update/delete. Assuming you might find the count of some use
> somewhere. Set the fill-factor for the lock table and HOT should prevent
> the table bloating too.
>
I think
PERFORM * FROM items WHERE owner = name FOR UPDATE;
sounds like it should work the best. What are the downsides for this that
would require the further table of counts? FWIW items has a SERIAL primary
key so FOR UPDATE should work on it.
Shak
