Tom Lane wrote:
> Basically there's no free lunch: if you want the benefits of MVCC it's
> going to cost you somewhere. In the Postgres design you pay by having
> to do VACUUM pretty often for heavily-updated tables. I don't think
> that decision is fundamentally wrong --- the attractive thing about it
> is that the overhead is pushed out of the foreground query-processing
> code paths. We still have lots of work to do in making autovacuum
> smarter, avoiding vacuuming parts of relations that have not changed,
> and so on. But I have no desire to go over to an Oracle-style solution
> instead. We can't beat them by trying to be like them, and we run no
> small risk of falling foul of some of their patents if we do.
The question is just if it makes sense to give people the option of
running some tables with a different approach where the drawbacks of the
current approach are significant. This would let them stick to
PostgreSQL as their one stop solution.
The MySQL storage engine plugin architecture does have some merit in
general (even if you consider the rest of the RDBMS along with the
available storage engines to be inferior). Some problems simply require
different algorithms.
regards,
Lukas
