Re: MVCC doc improvements

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MVCC doc improvements
Date: 2002-12-17 16:43:21
Message-ID: 1040143400.456.80.camel@tokyo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 11:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICS, that is not a misstatement. B-trees are still the only
> recommended index type for concurrent-update situations ...
> hash has deadlock issues and the other two are just plain not
> concurrent.

Yes, but what I disagree with is the recommendation that "concurrent
applications" should use B-trees -- a concurrent application that wishes
to index non-scalar data won't have a lot of success using B-trees,
page-level locks or not...

Cheers,

Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-12-17 16:53:36 Re: MVCC doc improvements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-12-17 16:35:56 Re: MVCC doc improvements