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

RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Hannu Krosing'" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Don Baccus'" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-29 17:49:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > Seems overwrite smgr has mainly advantages in terms of
> > > speed for operations other than rollback.
> > 
> > ... And rollback is required for < 5% transactions ...
> This obviously depends on application. 

Small number of aborted transactions was used to show
useless of UNDO in terms of space cleanup - that's why
I use same argument to show usefulness of O-smgr -:)

> I know people who rollback most of their transactions
> (actually they use it to emulate temp tables when reporting). 

Shouldn't they use TEMP tables? -:)

> OTOH it is possible to do without rolling back at all as
> MySQL folks have shown us ;)

Not with SDB tables which support transactions.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2001-05-29 17:55:33
Subject: RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-05-29 17:48:34
Subject: Proceeding with gettext

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group