Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date
Msg-id 877C71B2-7C18-481E-B67F-6483E1A29BAA@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jun 22, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Just for the record, if i understood correctly -- this was all a  
> bit black
> magicky -- Oracle found the data in the rollback segment by storing  
> a pointer
> to it in the block header where the updated data is. Ie, it could jump
> straight to the right place. Of course the record could have been  
> updated
> multiple times which would necessitate following a linked list of  
> rollback
> segment entries. And those are all random access reads though you  
> could hope
> it was mostly cached.

Correct. Mark is basically suggesting we do the same thing in the  
heap so that updates that don't touch any indexed fields could just  
update the indexes to point them at the new row version.

Question: do we currently create new index entries even if the index  
key hasn't changed? If so, what's the purpose of storing the CTID of  
the next version in the old version of the row?

> There are other solutions too. I never used DB2 but I was led to  
> believe they
> used their transaction log to retrieve old versions of the records.  
> Someone
> else here claimed DB2 didn't implement MVCC at all so perhaps  
> that's wrong
> though.

DB2 switched to MVCC in version 8. MSSQL switched in MSSQL2005. At  
this point, I don't know of any major databases that don't use some  
form of MVCC (err, maybe Sybase?)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC