| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com |
| Cc: | Kyriacos Kyriacou <kyriacosk(at)prime-tel(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MVCC performance issue |
| Date: | 2010-11-14 00:10:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4CDF2910.8010105@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 11/14/2010 02:38 AM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> It sounds like you're describing Oracle-style MVCC, using redo logs.
>>
>> http://blogs.sybase.com/database/2009/04/mvcc-dispelling-some-oracle-fudunderstanding-the-cost/
>>
> Craig, this is an interesting blog page, making some valid points about
> the multiversioning vs. locking. The ATM example, however, is
> unrealistic and couldn't have happened the way the author describes.
Yep, you're quite right. I was using it for its explanation of some of
the costs of MVCC as Oracle implements it, because it's surprisingly
hard to find explanations/analysis of that with some quick Google
searching. I hadn't read beyond that part.
I'd be really interested in some *good* writeups of the costs/benefits
of the various common mvcc and locking based rdbms implementations.
Thanks for posting a breakdown of the issues with that article, lest
others be mislead. Appreciated.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-14 00:20:22 | Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan |
| Previous Message | Mladen Gogala | 2010-11-13 18:38:50 | Re: MVCC performance issue |