On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:40:59PM +0200, Holger Hoffstaette wrote:
> large databases treat mass updates? AFAIK both DB2 and Oracle use MVCC
> (maybe a different kind?) as well, but I cannot believe that large updates
> still pose such big problems.
DB2 does not use MVCC. This is why lock escalation is such a big
problem for them.
Oracle uses a kind of MVCC based on rollback segments: your work goes
into the rollback segment, so that it can be undone, and the update
happens in place. This causes a different kind of pain: you can run
out of rollback segments (part way through a long-running transaction,
even) and then have to undo everything in order to do any work at
all. Every system involves trade-offs, and different systems make
different ones. The bulk update problem is PostgreSQL's weak spot,
and for that cost one gets huge other benefits.
> Are there no options (algorithms) for adaptively choosing different
> update strategies that do not incur the full MVCC overhead?
How would you pick? But one thing you could do is create the table
with a non-standard fill factor, which might allow HOT to work its magic.
+1 503 667 4564 x104
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-06-26 13:55:01|
|Subject: Re: ??: Postgresql update op is very very slow|
|Previous:||From: Peter T. Breuer||Date: 2008-06-26 13:49:44|
|Subject: Re: Hardware vs Software RAID|