| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 |
| Date: | 2000-12-09 00:14:38 |
| Message-ID: | 9343.976320878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> So, I've run simple test (below) to check this. Seems that 7.1
> is faster than 7.0.3 (nofsync), and that SELECT FOR UPDATE in RI
> triggers is quite bad for performance.
> Also, we should add new TODO item: implement dirty reads
> and use them in RI triggers.
That would fix RI triggers, I guess, but what about plain SELECT FOR
UPDATE being used by applications?
Why exactly is SELECT FOR UPDATE such a performance problem for 7.1,
anyway? I wouldn't have thought it'd be a big deal...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2000-12-09 00:48:03 | Re: OK, does anyone have any better ideas? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-08 23:52:23 | Re: Hash index on macaddr -> crash |