Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: vacuum locking

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Allen LandsidelDate: 2003-10-25 00:11:52
Subject: Re: My own performance/tuning q&a
Previous:From: Rob NaglerDate: 2003-10-24 23:09:30
Subject: Re: vacuum locking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group