Re: vacuum locking

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum locking
Date: 2003-10-25 00:07:57
Message-ID: 87ekx2uqle.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


Rob Nagler <nagler(at)bivio(dot)biz> writes:

> Mario Weilguni writes:
> > of course both approaches have advantages, it simply depends on the usage
> > pattern. A case where oracle really rules over postgresql are m<-->n
> > connection tables where each record consist of two foreign keys, the
> > overwrite approach is a big win here.

I don't understand why you would expect overwriting to win here.
What types of updates do you do on these tables?

Normally I found using update on such a table was too awkward to contemplate
so I just delete all the relation records that I'm replacing for the key I'm
working with and insert new ones. This always works out to be cleaner code. In
fact I usually leave such tables with no UPDATE grants on them.

In that situation I would have actually expected Postgres to do as well as or
better than Oracle since that makes them both functionally equivalent.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Allen Landsidel 2003-10-25 00:11:52 Re: My own performance/tuning q&a
Previous Message Rob Nagler 2003-10-24 23:09:30 Re: vacuum locking