| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim4o(at)email(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Schmidt, Peter" <peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance |
| Date: | 2001-02-22 17:32:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3A954D29.B7ED6F8E@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>
> > It may be that WAL has changed the rollback
> > time-characteristics to worse than pre-wal ?
>
> Nothing changed ... yet. And in future rollbacks
> of read-only transactions will be as fast as now,
> anyway.
What about rollbacks of a bunch uf inserts/updates/deletes?
I remember a scenario where an empty table was used by several
backends for gathering report data, and when the report is
done they will rollback to keep the table empty.
Should this kind of usage be replaced in the future by
having backend id as a key and then doing delete by that
key in the end ?
--------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew | 2001-02-22 17:36:28 | RE: beta5 ... |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2001-02-22 17:14:07 | Re: beta5 ... |