From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | hans wulf <lotu1(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
Date: | 2011-03-10 17:00:08 |
Message-ID: | 201103101700.p2AH08f22037@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
hans wulf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you want to do dirty counts or sums or any aggreate stuff, you will
> always have to visit the table. For many applications nobody cares
> about 0,01% inaccuracy.
>
> If you could keep the data that has to be aggregated in the index you
> could approximate values really fast.
>
> But because "Read uncommitted" is not implemented you will always have
> to visit the table. This is one reason why people have to still buy
> oracle.
>
> I don't know the postgres code, but I don't thing it is a big deal,
> not to care about consistancy. The code for executing such a query
> should be quite basic, because no MVCC-Stuff has to be done.
>
> Will this feature come any time soon? Even if "Read uncommitted" is a
> "could read all sorts of old and dirty stuff" it is still better than
> nothing.
Dirty reads are unlikely to be implemented. We do have a TODO item and
wiki page about how to allow index scans without heap access:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Index-only_scans
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2011-03-10 17:17:14 | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-10 16:55:51 | Re: pgindent (was Re: Header comments in the recently added files) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2011-03-10 17:07:09 | Re: Top five challenges |
Previous Message | silly sad | 2011-03-10 16:53:55 | Re: Top five challenges |