| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Database selection |
| Date: | 2023-09-21 06:49:45 |
| Message-ID: | a02fc2f1245740102a45ca7f68e40162b88635c8.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 2023-09-21 at 02:41 +0530, veem v wrote:
> However, One of the things regarding the transaction management, which I see in
> most postgres blogs is 'mvcc'(multiversion concurrency control) being an issue
> at times in a heavy concurrent system, in postgres as its maintaining exact
> copies of all the old versions of the rows(if someone still reading those) and
> at times cleaning these(vacuuming) becomes a pain.
If your workload consists of updating rows over and over at high frequency, that
is particularly hard for PostgreSQL, and you might want to consider alternatives.
There are ways to mitigate the impact (HOT update), but that requires some design
and planning effort.
> Does AWS aurora postgres depend on the same vacuuming technology for maintaining
> the transactions?
> Does Aurora Mysql opt for a similar strategy for transaction management? or any
> different/better ones?
Nobody except Amazon can tell. It is closed source.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pandora | 2023-09-21 09:55:01 | whether I can add a new encoding? |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-09-21 06:43:49 | Re: Changed functionality from 14.3 to 15.3 |