| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-06-01 20:43:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4A23F72E.EE98.0025.1@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> This approach allowed MSSQL to "clean up" on TPCE; to date their
> performance on that benchmark is so much better than anyone else
> nobody else wants to publish.
Since they use a "compatibility level" setting to control whether a
request for a serializable transaction gives you snapshot isolation or
a true serializable transaction, you have to be careful interpreting
results like that. Are you sure which one they used for this
benchmark?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-06-01 20:45:27 | Re: list_head naming conflict gcc 4.2/perl/solaris |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-01 20:40:48 | Re: Suggested TODO: allow ALTERing of typemods without heap/index rebuild |