| From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequently updated tables |
| Date: | 2004-06-08 23:16:45 |
| Message-ID: | 19034.24.91.171.78.1086736605.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>
>>I've been down several roads about how to handle data that has to change
>>on a very frequent and rapid manner.
>>
>>Think about summary tables, WEB session tables, etc. As great as MVCC is
>>for the vast majority of uses. The overhead of updates and deletes can
>>kill a project that needs to constantly update tables.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Are you saying that MVCC has *by design* a higher overhead for updates
> and deletes? or are you referring to the gradual loss of performance as
> a consequence of many dead tuples?
>
> I am guessing you mean the latter, but best to be sure :-)
The best phrasing would be "the accumulating overhead of deletes and
updates."
Yes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-08 23:17:48 | Re: cvs head : broken regression tests ? |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-06-08 22:15:40 | Re: Frequently updated tables |