Until you start worrying about MVC - we have had problems with the MSSQL
implementation of read consistency because of this 'feature'.
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 Berkus||Date: 2005-05-24 23:35:14|
|Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2005-05-24 21:36:07|
|Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres|