Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?
Date
Msg-id 201103101700.p2AH08f22037@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Read uncommitted ever possible?  ("hans wulf" <lotu1@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?
List pgsql-hackers
hans wulf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> if you want to do dirty counts or sums or any aggreate stuff, you will
> always have to visit the table. For many applications nobody cares
> about 0,01% inaccuracy.
> 
> If you could keep the data that has to be aggregated in the index you
> could approximate values really fast.
> 
> But because "Read uncommitted" is not implemented you will always have
> to visit the table. This is one reason why people have to still buy
> oracle.
> 
> I don't know the postgres code, but I don't thing it is a big deal,
> not to care about consistancy. The code for executing such a query
> should be quite basic, because no MVCC-Stuff has to be done.
> 
> Will this feature come any time soon? Even if "Read uncommitted" is a
> "could read all sorts of old and dirty stuff" it is still better than
> nothing.

Dirty reads are unlikely to be implemented.  We do have a TODO item and
wiki page about how to allow index scans without heap access:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Index-only_scans

-- Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: pgindent (was Re: Header comments in the recently added files)
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?