From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
Cc: | PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: schema/db design wrt performance |
Date: | 2003-01-16 16:02:40 |
Message-ID: | 20030116080132.A4962-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 16 Jan 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 09:39, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:34:38AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 08:20, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > > If a user has multiple connections and charges things to the same
> > > > account in more than one connection at the same time, the
> > > > transactions will have to be processed, effectively, in series: each
> > > > one will have to wait for another to commit in order to complete.
> > >
> > > This is true even though the default transaction mode is
> > > READ COMMITTED?
> >
> > Yes. Remember, _both_ of these are doing SELECT. . .FOR UPDATE.
> > Which means they both try to lock the corresponding record. But they
> > can't _both_ lock the same record; that's what the lock prevents.
>
> Could BEFORE INSERT|UPDATE|DELETE triggers perform the same
> functionality while touching only the desired records, thus
> decreasing conflict?
It does limit it to the corresponding records, but if you
say insert a row pointing at customer 1, and in another transaction
insert a row pointing at customer 1, the second waits on the first.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-01-16 16:05:22 | Re: schema/db design wrt performance |
Previous Message | Charles H. Woloszynski | 2003-01-16 15:53:08 | Re: 7.3.1 New install, large queries are slow |