Re: performance of insert/delete/update

On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 21:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> > On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 18:23, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >> The next factor that makes for fast inserts of large amounts of data in a
> >> transaction is MVCC. With Oracle and many other databases, transactions
> >> are written into a seperate log file, and when you commit, they are
> >> inserted into the database as one big group. This means you write your
> >> data twice, once into the transaction log, and once into the database.
>
> > You are just deferring the pain. Whereas others must flush from log
> > to "database files", they do not have to VACUUM or VACUUM ANALYZE.
>
> Sure, it's just shuffling the housekeeping work from one place to
> another. The thing that I like about Postgres' approach is that we
> put the housekeeping in a background task (VACUUM) rather than in the
> critical path of foreground transaction commit.

If you have a quiescent point somewhere in the middle of the night...

It's all about differing philosophies, though, and there's no way
that Oracle will re-write Rdb/VMS (they bought it from DEC in 1997
for it's high-volume OLTP technolgies) and you all won't re-write
Postgres...

--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. mailto:ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| "they love our milk and honey, but preach about another |
| way of living" |
| Merle Haggard, "The Fighting Side Of Me" |
+------------------------------------------------------------+