On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:31:52AM -0700, Seun Osewa wrote:
>
> The beauty of the scheme is that the WAL syncs which "sync everyone's
> changes so far" would cost about the same as the WAL syncs for just
> one transaction being committed. But when there are so many trans-
> actions we would not
Seun Osewa wrote:
I observed that in in many applications there are some transactions
that are more critical than others. I may have the same database
instance managing website visitor accounting and financial
transactions. I could tolerate the loss of a few transactions whose
only job is to tell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
> > So I want to ask, "what if databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?"
> > Another possibility in th
Hi Christopher,
Just to go through your points.
> > COMMIT NOSYNC; --> (sacrifice durability of non-critical transaction
> > for overall speed). So, the question is what people, especially those
> > who have done DBMS work, think about this!
> I think that whenever my organization cares THAT muc
Hi,
I have been studying the basic limitation that the number of committed
transactions per second possible in a relational databases. Since
each transaction requires at least write-ahead log data to be flushed
to disk the upper bound of transactions per second is equal to the
number of independe
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
>> So I want to ask, "what is databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?"
> Another possibility in this would be to have not one, but TWO
> backends.
> One database, on one port,
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
> So I want to ask, "what is databases have a 'COMMIT NOSYNC;' option?"
> Then we can really improve "transaction-per-second" performance for a
> database that has lots of non-critical transactions while not
> jeopardising the dur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seun Osewa) wrote:
> COMMIT; --> COMMIT SYNC; (guarantees atomic, consistent, durable
> write)
> COMMIT NOSYNC; --> (sacrifice durability of non-critical transaction
> for overall speed). So, the question is what people, especially those
> who have done DBMS work, think about th
