Re: Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought Four issues why "old elephants" lack performance: Explanation sought
Date: 2012-02-27 16:02:06
Message-ID: 20120227160206.GN48576@crankycanuck.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:19:10AM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> Strangely, he doesn't consider PostgreSQL to be an elephant.

The last presentation I saw from Volt guys explicitly mentioned
Postgres as one of the elephants.

Also, if you read their literature carefully, you discover that the
reason there's no locking overhead is because there's no lock;
basically, if you're joining a lot, you're thrown back on
old-fashioned locks of some sort. They also don't permit
in-transaction round trips to the application, so that source of lock
contention is also gone.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-27 16:26:25 Re: explain and index scan
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2012-02-27 15:54:32 Re: Default PostgreSQL server encoding - Change to unicode (utf8)