From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suggestion for optimization |
Date: | 2002-04-05 19:55:07 |
Message-ID: | m3k7rlzzs4.fsf@varsoon.wireboard.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
> How would this work with MVCC?
> >>
> Whenever a commit occurs, the pending inserts are totaled into the sum
> and the pending deletes are subtracted. It can be a list in memory or
> whatever. Maybe you are referring to the old (expired) rows begin
> stored until vacuum? Perhaps I really don't understand your question or
> the issues involved. Why does MVCC complicate issues?
> <<
Because the row count depends on what transactions have committed when
yours starts. Also, you will see the count(*) reflecting INSERTs in
your transaction, but others won't until you commit. So there is no
well-defined concept of cardinality under MVCC--it depends on which
rows are visible to which transactions.
-Doug
--
Doug McNaught Wireboard Industries http://www.wireboard.com/
Custom software development, systems and network consulting.
Java PostgreSQL Enhydra Python Zope Perl Apache Linux BSD...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-04-05 20:08:11 | Re: Suggestion for optimization |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-05 19:51:41 | Re: Suggestion for optimization |