From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: vacuum locking |
Date: | 2003-10-25 00:07:57 |
Message-ID: | 87ekx2uqle.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz> writes:
> Mario Weilguni writes:
> > of course both approaches have advantages, it simply depends on the usage
> > pattern. A case where oracle really rules over postgresql are m<-->n
> > connection tables where each record consist of two foreign keys, the
> > overwrite approach is a big win here.
I don't understand why you would expect overwriting to win here.
What types of updates do you do on these tables?
Normally I found using update on such a table was too awkward to contemplate
so I just delete all the relation records that I'm replacing for the key I'm
working with and insert new ones. This always works out to be cleaner code. In
fact I usually leave such tables with no UPDATE grants on them.
In that situation I would have actually expected Postgres to do as well as or
better than Oracle since that makes them both functionally equivalent.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Allen Landsidel | 2003-10-25 00:11:52 | Re: My own performance/tuning q&a |
Previous Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-10-24 23:09:30 | Re: vacuum locking |