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

Re: planner/optimizer question

From: "Gary Doades" <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: planner/optimizer question
Date: 2004-04-30 18:59:38
Message-ID: 4092B02A.15469.199EE3DE@localhost (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 30 Apr 2004 at 9:37, Kevin Barnard wrote:

> I was always under the impression that MSSQL used leaf and row level locking and therefore 
> was not a concurrent, in the same sense that postgres is, database. It would still allow for 
> concurrent connections and such but updates will get blocked/ delayed. I might be wrong.

Ultimately you may be right. I don't know enough about SQLServer 
internals to say either way. Anyway, most of our system is in selects for 
70% of the time. I could try and set up a test for this when I get a bit 
more time.

Unfortunately I suspect that this topic won't get taken much further. In 
order to test this it would mean modifying quite a bit of code. Whether 
putting additional info in the index header and not visiting the data row 
if all the required data is in the index would be beneficial would require 
quite a bit of work by someone who knows more than I do. I reckon that 
no-one has the time to do this at the moment.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2004-04-30 19:48:32
Subject: Re: planner/optimizer question
Previous:From: Gary DoadesDate: 2004-04-30 18:29:44
Subject: Re: planner/optimizer question

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