From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Anton Maksimenkov <engineer(at)hlebprom(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DELETE, INSERT vs SELECT, UPDATE || INSERT |
Date: | 2005-12-23 15:30:00 |
Message-ID: | 19921.1135351800@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Anton Maksimenkov <engineer(at)hlebprom(dot)ru> writes:
> Second idea was to try to SELECT (user, cookie) pair and then UPDATE
> it if it exists or INSERT if not. I has thought that if UPDATE will
> rewrite same place in file with new count it may lead to more compact
> table (file not grow and information about actual rows in file will
> not changed).
You're wasting your time, because Postgres doesn't work that way.
UPDATE is really indistinguishable from DELETE+INSERT, and there will
always be a dead row afterwards, because under MVCC rules both versions
of the row have to be left in the table for some time after your
transaction commits. See
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/mvcc.html
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-23 15:54:48 | Re: Order by behaviour |
Previous Message | Guido Neitzer | 2005-12-23 15:03:36 | Re: Order by behaviour |