[Please copy the mailing list on replies so others can participate
in and learn from the discussion.]
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 11:16:08AM +0400, Ilja Golshtein wrote:
> I started to believe SELECT ... FOR SHARE is the remedy for my
> problems. Unfortunately it is not till I cannot combine share an
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:18:00PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:18:03PM +0400, Ilja Golshtein wrote:
> > I want to select data from two tables obtaining
> > exclusive lock for records of the first table and
> > nonexclusive lock for records of the second one.
> >
> > In
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:18:03PM +0400, Ilja Golshtein wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I want to select data from two tables obtaining
> exclusive lock for records of the first table and
> nonexclusive lock for records of the second one.
>
> In other words, I need something like
> select a.f, b.f from a,b
>"Ilja Golshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm interested in SELECT ... FOR SHARE 8.1 feature. I'd tried to
>> measure performance degradation and got something about 30-60% for
>> queries retrieve a lot of rows.
>
>Degradation relative to what?
Thanks for response and sorry for bad formulat
"Ilja Golshtein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm interested in SELECT ... FOR SHARE 8.1 feature. I'd tried to
> measure performance degradation and got something about 30-60% for
> queries retrieve a lot of rows.
Degradation relative to what?
regards, tom lane
-
Hello!
I want to select data from two tables obtaining
exclusive lock for records of the first table and
nonexclusive lock for records of the second one.
In other words, I need something like
select a.f, b.f from a,b for update of a for share of b.
Any hints?
Thanks.
--
Best regards
Ilja Gols
Hello!
I'm interested in SELECT ... FOR SHARE 8.1 feature. I'd tried to measure
performance degradation and got something about 30-60% for queries retrieve a
lot of rows. Is it realistic estimation? Does this penalty depend on something
(data types, triggers, foreign keys, whatever) significant
