Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date
Msg-id 3B128DD4.E15100AB@tm.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem  (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> 
> > Yes, that is a good description. And old version is only required in the following
> > two cases:
> >
> > 1. the txn that modified this tuple is still open (reader in default committed read)
> > 2. reader is in serializable transaction isolation and has earlier xtid
> >
> > Seems overwrite smgr has mainly advantages in terms of speed for operations
> > other than rollback.
> 
> ... And rollback is required for < 5% transactions ...

This obviously depends on application. 

I know people who rollback most of their transactions (actually they use
it to 
emulate temp tables when reporting). 

OTOH it is possible to do without rolling back at all as MySQL folks
have 
shown us ;)

Also, IIRC, pgbench does no rollbacks. I think that we have no
performance test that does.

-----------------
Hannu


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Vadim Mikheev"
Date:
Subject: Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Next
From: "Vadim Mikheev"
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem