Re: vacuum locking

From: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum locking
Date: 2003-10-24 06:17:22
Message-ID: 200310240817.22586.mweilguni@sime.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Am Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2003 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
> ... if all tuples are the same size, and if you never have any
> transactions that touch enough tuples to overflow your undo segment
> (or even just sit there for a long time, preventing you from recycling
> undo-log space; this is the dual of the VACUUM-can't-reclaim-dead-tuple
> problem). And a few other problems that any Oracle DBA can tell you about.
> I prefer our system.

of course both approaches have advantages, it simply depends on the usage
pattern. A case where oracle really rules over postgresql are m<-->n
connection tables where each record consist of two foreign keys, the
overwrite approach is a big win here.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Allen Landsidel 2003-10-24 08:32:12 Re: My own performance/tuning q&a
Previous Message Vivek Khera 2003-10-23 21:14:11 Re: My own performance/tuning q&a