On 8/15/07, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 07:06 +0530, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > You were half right. Inserts in PostgreSQL perform similar to other
> > databases (or at least, use similar mechanisms). It's the updates
> > that suffer, because this translates to de
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 07:06 +0530, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> You were half right. Inserts in PostgreSQL perform similar to other
> databases (or at least, use similar mechanisms). It's the updates
> that suffer, because this translates to delete + insert essentially.
> Databases that use simple loc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/07 20:36, Merlin Moncure wrote:
[snip]
>
> PostgreSQL wins in terms of better concurrency (especially in long
> transactions or transactions that touch a lot of records), cheap
> rollbacks, and all the advantages of a sophisticated locking en
On 8/14/07, Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RPK wrote:
> > I want to know whether MVCC has cons also. Is it heavy on resources? How
> > PGSQL MVCC relates with SQL Server 2005 new Snapshot Isolation.
> >
>
> Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
> performa
"Kenneth Downs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RPK wrote:
>> I want to know whether MVCC has cons also. Is it heavy on resources? How
>> PGSQL MVCC relates with SQL Server 2005 new Snapshot Isolation.
Well the fundamental con of MVCC versus serializing everything using locks is
that you have to ke
> On 08/14/07 14:34, Kenneth Downs wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
> >>> performance. Because of MVCC, Postgres's write performance (insert
> >>> and update) appears on my sys
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/07 14:34, Kenneth Downs wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
>>> performance. Because of MVCC, Postgres's write performance (inser
Tom Lane wrote:
Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
performance. Because of MVCC, Postgres's write performance (insert and
update) appears on my systems to be almost exactly linear to row size.
Inserting 1000 rows
Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
> performance. Because of MVCC, Postgres's write performance (insert and
> update) appears on my systems to be almost exactly linear to row size.
> Inserting 1000 rows into a table
On 8/14/07, RPK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I want to know whether MVCC has cons also. Is it heavy on resources? How
> PGSQL MVCC relates with SQL Server 2005 new Snapshot Isolation.
Of course it does. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, after all.
PostgreSQL's mvcc implementation mean
RPK wrote:
I want to know whether MVCC has cons also. Is it heavy on resources? How
PGSQL MVCC relates with SQL Server 2005 new Snapshot Isolation.
Speaking as an end-user, I can give only one I've ever seen, which is
performance. Because of MVCC, Postgres's write performance (insert and
I want to know whether MVCC has cons also. Is it heavy on resources? How
PGSQL MVCC relates with SQL Server 2005 new Snapshot Isolation.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/MVCC-cons-tf4268841.html#a12149505
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com
12 matches
Mail list logo
