| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 7.3.3 and Intel C compiler |
| Date: | 2003-07-21 03:56:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200307210356.h6L3upB23919@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hans-Jrgen Schnig wrote:
> This week I have done some performance tuning at a customer's office. We
> have beaten (demoralized) MS SQL and DB2 in serializable mode and DB2 in
> any transaction isolation level :).
>
> By the way: In case of very simple statements SERIALIZABLE is about 3
> times faster than READ COMMITTED. I expected it to be faster but I did
> not expect this difference.
Why was SERIALIZABLE faster? I know SERIALIZABLE doesn't have the
rollback penalty in read-only queries, but I don't understand why it
would be faster.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-21 04:14:55 | Re: vacuum does not reclaim rows |
| Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-07-21 00:16:04 | Reinventing the wheel... |