Re: No heap lookups on index

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No heap lookups on index
Date: 2006-01-19 02:02:28
Message-ID: 1137636148.15377.292.camel@home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 09:18 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Oracle does, but you pay in other ways. Instead of keeping dead tuples
> > in the main heap, they shuffle them off to an 'undo log'. This has some
> > downsides:
> >
> > Rollbacks take *forever*, though this usually isn't much of an issue
> > unless you need to abort a really big transaction.
>
> It's a good point though. Surely a database should be optimised for the
> most common operation

Yes.

> - commits, rather than rollbacks?

Commits are most common because most databases are optimized for them.
Lots of programs go through a ton pre-checking to avoid a rollback that
they don't need to do under PostgreSQL.

I've found that for small systems I tend to rely very heavily on
frequent vacuums and database level exceptions for virtually all data
checking. Rollbacks are nearly as common as commits in those
environments if not more-so.
--

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Redefined Horizons 2006-01-19 02:59:58 Data type that corresponds to bigserial...
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2006-01-19 01:47:49 Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-01-19 03:03:33 Re: pgxs/windows
Previous Message ITAGAKI Takahiro 2006-01-19 02:00:00 TODO-Item: B-tree fillfactor control