Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)
Date: 2005-01-19 05:09:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-announcepgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org (Jeff Davis) wrote:
> I almost think to not supply an MVCC system would break the "I" in ACID,
> would it not? I can't think of any other obvious way to isolate the
> transactions, but on the other hand, wouldn't DB2 want to be ACID
> compliant?

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

MVCC allows an ACID implementation to not need to do a lot of resource

In the absence of MVCC, you have way more locks outstanding, which
makes it easier for there to be conflicts between lock requests.

In effect, with MVCC, you can do more things concurrently without the
system crumbling due to a surfeit of deadlocks.
Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?

In response to

pgsql-announce by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2005-01-19 13:02:46
Subject: PostgreSQL 8.0.0 Released
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-01-18 23:01:01
Subject: Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-19 05:25:43
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-19 05:07:18
Subject: Re: Viewupdate: Inherit default expressions from columns

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-19 05:30:41
Subject: Re: patches for OS/2 port
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-19 04:29:44
Subject: Re: test: pl/pgsql refcursors

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group