Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-18 23:01:01
Message-ID: 1106089261.2886.575.camel@jeff
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-announce pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> Certainly not; ACID was a recognized goal long before anyone thought of
> MVCC. You do need much more locking to make it work without MVCC,
> though --- for instance, a reader that is interested in a just-modified
> row has to block until the writer completes or rolls back.
>
> People who hang around Postgres too long tend to think that MVCC is the
> obviously correct way to do things, but much of the rest of the world
> thinks differently ;-)

Well, that would explain why everyone is so happy with PostgreSQL's
concurrent access performance.

Thanks for the information, although I'm not sure I wanted to be
reminded about complicated locking issues ( I suppose I must have known
that at one time, but perhaps I surpressed it ;-)

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-announce by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2005-01-19 05:09:53 Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Previous Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2005-01-18 22:42:32 Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-01-18 23:48:00 Re: ARC patent
Previous Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2005-01-18 22:42:32 Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-01-18 23:24:37 Re: rtree: improve performance, tuple killing
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-01-18 22:59:46 Re: dllist.c 0 -> NULL