From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: No heap lookups on index |
Date: | 2006-01-19 01:25:34 |
Message-ID: | 5987.1137633934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> 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?
The "shuffling off" of the data is expensive in itself, so I'm not sure
you can argue that the Oracle way is more optimal for commits either.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 01:27:15 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-19 01:22:15 | Re: PostgreSQL Top 10 Wishlist |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 01:27:15 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 01:20:17 | Re: No heap lookups on index |