| 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: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E3201665D@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Baccus | 2001-05-29 17:55:33 | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-05-29 17:48:34 | Proceeding with gettext |