Re: Autocommit, isolation level, and vacuum behavior

From: Jack Orenstein <jack(dot)orenstein(at)hds(dot)com>
To: Tomasz Ostrowski <tometzky(at)batory(dot)org(dot)pl>
Cc: Jack Orenstein <jack(dot)orenstein(at)hds(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autocommit, isolation level, and vacuum behavior
Date: 2008-09-14 15:32:14
Message-ID: 6B024CA6-8223-4971-B40E-2519C9D58AB4@hds.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sep 13, 2008, at 4:39 AM, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:

> On 2008-09-12 15:52, Jack Orenstein wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I misspoke. I have an index, but preferred doing a scan
>> without the index in this case.
>
> Why?
>
> The only reason I can think of is that you'd like to avoid disk
> seeking. But you get at most 1 row in 30 seconds, so disk latency
> (only several milliseconds) can be ignored.
>

Because other parts of our application consume results from the same
query at normal speed.

Jack

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin Langhoff 2008-09-14 23:55:57 Pg 8.3 tuning recommendations for embedded low-memory device (for OLPC :-) )
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-09-14 15:09:26 Re: Restore filesystem backup