Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.

From: Qingqing Zhou
Subject: Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.
Date: ,
Msg-id: de1ikv$1k8r$1@news.hub.org
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Magnus Hagander")
Responses: Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (John A Meinel)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Stéphane COEZ, )
 Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (John Arbash Meinel, )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
   Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (John Arbash Meinel, )
   Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Steinar H. Gunderson", )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Stéphane COEZ, )
 Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (, )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Stéphane COEZ, )
 Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Magnus Hagander", )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Stéphane COEZ, )
 Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Magnus Hagander", )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (Alvaro Herrera <-ip.org>, )
  Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  ("Qingqing Zhou", )
   Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.  (John A Meinel, )

"Alvaro Herrera" <-ip.org> writes
>
> Interesting; do they use an overwriting storage manager like Oracle, or
> a non-overwriting one like Postgres?
>

They call this MVCC "RLV(row level versioning)". I think they use rollback
segment like Oracle (a.k.a "version store" or tempdb in SQL Server).  Some
details are explained in their white paper:"Database concurrency and row
level versioning in SQL Server 2005".

Regards,
Qingqing




pgsql-performance by date:

From: John A Meinel
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance pb vs SQLServer.
From: "Sebastian Lallana"
Date:
Subject: FW: Tx forecast improving harware capabilities.