Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Select performance vs. mssql

From: Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>,mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date: 2005-05-24 23:12:14
Message-ID: 33c6269f05052416122096eb1e@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Until you start worrying about MVC - we have had problems with the MSSQL 
implementation of read consistency because of this 'feature'.

Alex Turner
NetEconomist

On 5/24/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:36:36 -0700,
> mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > --MSSQL's ability to hit the index only and not having
> > to go to the table itself results in a _big_
> > performance/efficiency gain. If someone who's in
> > development wants to pass this along, it would be a
> > nice addition to PostgreSQL sometime in the future.
> > I'd suspect that as well as making one query faster,
> > it would make everything else faster/more scalable as
> > the server load is so much less.
> 
> This gets brought up a lot. The problem is that the index doesn't include
> information about whether the current transaction can see the referenced
> row. Putting this information in the index will add significant overhead
> to every update and the opinion of the developers is that this would be
> a net loss overall.
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-05-24 23:35:14
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-05-24 21:36:07
Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group