Re: Select performance vs. mssql - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alex Turner
Subject Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date
Msg-id 33c6269f05052416122096eb1e@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Select performance vs. mssql  (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>)
List pgsql-performance
Until you start worrying about MVC - we have had problems with the MSSQL implementation of read consistency because of this 'feature'.

Alex Turner
NetEconomist

On 5/24/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:36:36 -0700,
  mark durrant <markd89@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --MSSQL's ability to hit the index only and not having
> to go to the table itself results in a _big_
> performance/efficiency gain. If someone who's in
> development wants to pass this along, it would be a
> nice addition to PostgreSQL sometime in the future.
> I'd suspect that as well as making one query faster,
> it would make everything else faster/more scalable as
> the server load is so much less.

This gets brought up a lot. The problem is that the index doesn't include
information about whether the current transaction can see the referenced
row. Putting this information in the index will add significant overhead
to every update and the opinion of the developers is that this would be
a net loss overall.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Need help to decide Mysql vs Postgres
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql