| From: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum locking |
| Date: | 2003-10-23 06:14:56 |
| Message-ID: | 200310230814.56738.mweilguni@sime.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Am Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2003 01:32 schrieb Rob Nagler:
> The concept of vacuuming seems to be problematic. I'm not sure why
> the database simply can't garbage collect incrementally. AGC is very
> tricky, especially AGC that involves gigabytes of data on disk.
> Incremental garbage collection seems to be what other databases do,
> and it's been my experience that other databases don't have the type
> of unpredictable behavior I'm seeing with Postgres. I'd rather the
> database be a little bit slower on average than have to figure out the
> best time to inconvenience my users.
I think oracle does not do garbage collect, it overwrites the tuples directly
and stores the old tuples in undo buffers. Since most transactions are
commits, this is a big win.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Priem | 2003-10-23 07:03:46 | Re: RAID controllers etc... was: PostgreSQL data on aNAS device ? |
| Previous Message | CHEWTC | 2003-10-23 01:47:56 | Re: Postgresql performance |