| From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently updated tables |
| Date: | 2004-06-09 17:41:27 |
| Message-ID: | 56883.64.119.142.34.1086802887.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:49:20PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> >I love PG, I've been using it since version 6x, and it has gotten
>> >fantastic over the years, and in many cases, I would choose it over
>> >Oracle, but for systems that need frequent updates, I have a lot of
>> >concerns.
>>
>> ...that's the price you pay for concurrency man...
>
> Also he said that the problem was solved with enough lazy VACUUM
> scheduling. I don't understand why he doesn't want to use that
> solution.
>
Sigh, because vacuums take away from performance. Imagine a table that has
to be updated on the order of a few thousand times a minute. Think about
the drop in performance during the vacuum.
On a one row table, vacuum is not so bad, but try some benchmarks on a
table with a goodly number of rows.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-09 17:44:49 | Re: thread safety tests |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-06-09 17:41:15 | Re: thread safety tests |