| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum DB in Postgres Vs similar concept in other RDBMS |
| Date: | 2007-05-25 20:01:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200705251601.02909.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 20:33, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/23/07 19:17, Chris Browne wrote:
> > harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com ("Harpreet Dhaliwal") writes:
> >> I was just wondering if Vacuum Db in postgresql is somehow superior
> >> to the ones that we have in other RDBMS.
> >
> > The thing that is more akin to VACUUM, in Oracle's case, is the
> > rollback segment. In Oracle, Rollback segments are areas in your
> > database which are used to temporarily save the previous values when
> > some updates are going on.
> >
> > In the case of Oracle, if a transaction rolls back, it has to go and
> > do some work to clean up after the dead transaction.
> >
> > This is not *exactly* like PostgreSQL's notion of vacuuming, but
> > that's the nearest equivalent that Oracle has.
>
> That's the only other way to do it, no?
>
You can also take care of the maintenence part both inline (as opposed to a
seperate segment) and at commit time (rather than delay for a vacuum). See
the current HOT patch for a similar implementation to this idea.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Fitzpatrick | 2007-05-25 20:15:14 | Re: Referencing any field in a trigger |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-05-25 19:47:32 | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |