Re: vacuum locking
От | Mario Weilguni |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum locking |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200310240817.22586.mweilguni@sime.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum locking (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum locking
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Am Donnerstag, 23. Oktober 2003 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane: > ... if all tuples are the same size, and if you never have any > transactions that touch enough tuples to overflow your undo segment > (or even just sit there for a long time, preventing you from recycling > undo-log space; this is the dual of the VACUUM-can't-reclaim-dead-tuple > problem). And a few other problems that any Oracle DBA can tell you about. > I prefer our system. of course both approaches have advantages, it simply depends on the usage pattern. A case where oracle really rules over postgresql are m<-->n connection tables where each record consist of two foreign keys, the overwrite approach is a big win here.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: