| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Date: | 2004-06-01 12:39:13 |
| Message-ID: | l7tob0911ft6s9loht80thbo7tk1118iv6@email.aon.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:47:01 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>If putting back xmax is the price we must pay for nested transactions,
>then we *will* pay that price. Maybe not in this release, but it will
>inevitably happen.
"we" = every Postgres user, even those that do not use subtransactions.
"price" = 2% to 5% performance loss for databases where the working set
is larger than main memory.
>Don't bother hollering "veto" ;-)
Ok, I'll shut up till I have something concrete to support my opinion.
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-01 12:53:50 | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2004-06-01 12:37:37 | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |