Re: vacuum locking - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Mario Weilguni
Subject Re: vacuum locking
Date
Msg-id 200310240817.22586.mweilguni@sime.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum locking  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: vacuum locking  (Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz>)
List pgsql-performance
Am Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2003 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
> ... if all tuples are the same size, and if you never have any
> transactions that touch enough tuples to overflow your undo segment
> (or even just sit there for a long time, preventing you from recycling
> undo-log space; this is the dual of the VACUUM-can't-reclaim-dead-tuple
> problem).  And a few other problems that any Oracle DBA can tell you about.
> I prefer our system.

of course both approaches have advantages, it simply depends on the usage
pattern. A case where oracle really rules over postgresql are m<-->n
connection tables where each record consist of two foreign keys, the
overwrite approach is a big win here.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Vivek Khera
Date:
Subject: Re: My own performance/tuning q&a
Next
From: Allen Landsidel
Date:
Subject: Re: My own performance/tuning q&a