Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Read uncommitted ever possible? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201103101700.p2AH08f22037@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Read uncommitted ever possible? ("hans wulf" <lotu1@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Read uncommitted ever possible?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
hans wulf wrote: > Hi, > > if you want to do dirty counts or sums or any aggreate stuff, you will > always have to visit the table. For many applications nobody cares > about 0,01% inaccuracy. > > If you could keep the data that has to be aggregated in the index you > could approximate values really fast. > > But because "Read uncommitted" is not implemented you will always have > to visit the table. This is one reason why people have to still buy > oracle. > > I don't know the postgres code, but I don't thing it is a big deal, > not to care about consistancy. The code for executing such a query > should be quite basic, because no MVCC-Stuff has to be done. > > Will this feature come any time soon? Even if "Read uncommitted" is a > "could read all sorts of old and dirty stuff" it is still better than > nothing. Dirty reads are unlikely to be implemented. We do have a TODO item and wiki page about how to allow index scans without heap access: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Index-only_scans -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: