Re: vacuum locking - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Mario Weilguni
Subject Re: vacuum locking
Date
Msg-id 200310230814.56738.mweilguni@sime.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum locking  (Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz>)
Responses Re: vacuum locking
List pgsql-performance
Am Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2003 01:32 schrieb Rob Nagler:
> The concept of vacuuming seems to be problematic.  I'm not sure why
> the database simply can't garbage collect incrementally.  AGC is very
> tricky, especially AGC that involves gigabytes of data on disk.
> Incremental garbage collection seems to be what other databases do,
> and it's been my experience that other databases don't have the type
> of unpredictable behavior I'm seeing with Postgres.  I'd rather the
> database be a little bit slower on average than have to figure out the
> best time to inconvenience my users.

I think oracle does not do garbage collect, it overwrites the tuples directly
and stores the old tuples in undo buffers. Since most transactions are
commits, this is a big win.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: CHEWTC@ap.nec.com.sg
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql performance
Next
From: "Alexander Priem"
Date:
Subject: Re: RAID controllers etc... was: PostgreSQL data on aNAS device ?