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

Re: performance of insert/delete/update

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Tim Gardner <tgardner(at)codeHorse(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Date: 2002-11-26 00:41:09
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0211251739080.8805-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Tim Gardner wrote:
> 
> > I'm new to postgresql, and as you suggested, this is 
> > counter-intuitive to me.  I would have thought that having to store 
> > all the inserts to be able to roll them back would take longer.  Is 
> > my thinking wrong or not relevant?  Why is this not the case?
> 
> Your thinking on this is wrong, and it is counter-intuitive to think that 
> a transaction would speed things up.  Postgresql is very different from 
> other databases.

Sorry that came out like that, I meant to write:

I meant to add in there that I thought the same way at first, and only 
after a little trial and much error did I realize that I was thinking in 
terms of how other databases did things.  I.e. most people make the same 
mistake when starting out with pgsql.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rich ScottDate: 2002-11-26 00:43:39
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update
Previous:From: Tim GardnerDate: 2002-11-26 00:40:43
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-11-26 01:24:28
Subject: Postgres Security Expert???
Previous:From: Tim GardnerDate: 2002-11-26 00:40:43
Subject: Re: performance of insert/delete/update

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