| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kenneth Downs <ken(at)secdat(dot)com>, RPK <rpk(dot)general(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MVCC cons |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 18:45:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1187203532.5203.24.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 07:06 +0530, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> You were half right. Inserts in PostgreSQL perform similar to other
> databases (or at least, use similar mechanisms). It's the updates
> that suffer, because this translates to delete + insert essentially.
> Databases that use simple locking strategies can simply update the
> record in place.
I think in some databases that use locking, an INSERT can actually block
a SELECT, and vice-versa. So wouldn't that mean PostgreSQL MVCC is
better for INSERT performance?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-08-15 18:55:14 | Re: Best practice for: ERROR: invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8" |
| Previous Message | Leif B. Kristensen | 2007-08-15 18:31:45 | Re: pg_dump on local Windows, pg_restore on Linux? |