Re: performance of insert/delete/update

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Date: 2002-11-26 03:30:23
Message-ID: 5163.1038281423@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 18:23, scott.marlowe wrote:
>> The next factor that makes for fast inserts of large amounts of data in a
>> transaction is MVCC. With Oracle and many other databases, transactions
>> are written into a seperate log file, and when you commit, they are
>> inserted into the database as one big group. This means you write your
>> data twice, once into the transaction log, and once into the database.

> You are just deferring the pain. Whereas others must flush from log
> to "database files", they do not have to VACUUM or VACUUM ANALYZE.

Sure, it's just shuffling the housekeeping work from one place to
another. The thing that I like about Postgres' approach is that we
put the housekeeping in a background task (VACUUM) rather than in the
critical path of foreground transaction commit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-26 03:44:29 Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-26 03:09:41 dbmirror had sprintf string too short

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-26 03:44:29 Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2002-11-26 01:52:33 Re: performance of insert/delete/update