Re: vacuum locking

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum locking
Date: 2003-10-23 13:26:55
Message-ID: 29123.1066915615@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

... 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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2003-10-23 13:54:45 Re: vacuum locking
Previous Message Allen Landsidel 2003-10-23 13:26:49 My own performance/tuning q&a