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

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy <sailesh(at)cs(dot)berkeley(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-18 22:42:32
Message-ID: mjqwtuaxstj.fsf@drones.CS.Berkeley.EDU (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-announcepgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

    Tom> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that
    Tom> MVCC is the obviously correct way to do things, but much of
    Tom> the rest of the world thinks differently ;-)

It works the other way too ... people who come from the locking world
find it difficult to wrap their heads around MVCC. A big part of this
is because Gray's original paper on transaction isolation defines the
different levels based on what kind of lock acquisitions they involve. 

A very nice alternative approach to defining transaction isolation is
"Generalized isolation level definitions" by Adya, Liskov and O'Neill
that appears in ICDE 2000. 

-- 
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh



In response to

pgsql-announce by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-18 23:01:01
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-18 22:29:16
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-18 23:01:01
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-18 22:33:49
Subject: Re: ARC patent

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-18 22:55:17
Subject: test: pl/pgsql refcursors
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-18 22:29:16
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

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