From: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Date: | 2005-05-24 23:12:14 |
Message-ID: | 33c6269f05052416122096eb1e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Until you start worrying about MVC - we have had problems with the MSSQL
implementation of read consistency because of this 'feature'.
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On 5/24/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:36:36 -0700,
> mark durrant <markd89(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > --MSSQL's ability to hit the index only and not having
> > to go to the table itself results in a _big_
> > performance/efficiency gain. If someone who's in
> > development wants to pass this along, it would be a
> > nice addition to PostgreSQL sometime in the future.
> > I'd suspect that as well as making one query faster,
> > it would make everything else faster/more scalable as
> > the server load is so much less.
>
> This gets brought up a lot. The problem is that the index doesn't include
> information about whether the current transaction can see the referenced
> row. Putting this information in the index will add significant overhead
> to every update and the opinion of the developers is that this would be
> a net loss overall.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-05-24 23:35:14 | Re: Select performance vs. mssql |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-24 21:36:07 | Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres |