| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Date: | 2006-01-19 01:18:55 |
| Message-ID: | 43CEE8FF.3050308@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Oracle does, but you pay in other ways. Instead of keeping dead tuples
> in the main heap, they shuffle them off to an 'undo log'. This has some
> downsides:
>
> Rollbacks take *forever*, though this usually isn't much of an issue
> unless you need to abort a really big transaction.
It's a good point though. Surely a database should be optimised for the
most common operation - commits, rather than rollbacks?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 01:20:17 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-19 01:13:59 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 01:20:17 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-19 01:13:59 | Re: No heap lookups on index |