Re: Frequently updated tables

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:49:20PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> >I love PG, I've been using it since version 6x, and it has gotten
>> >fantastic over the years, and in many cases, I would choose it over
>> >Oracle, but for systems that need frequent updates, I have a lot of
>> >concerns.
>>
>> ...that's the price you pay for concurrency man...
>
> Also he said that the problem was solved with enough lazy VACUUM
> scheduling.  I don't understand why he doesn't want to use that
> solution.
>

Sigh, because vacuums take away from performance. Imagine a table that has
to be updated on the order of a few thousand times a minute. Think about
the drop in performance during the vacuum.

On a one row table, vacuum is not so bad, but try some benchmarks on a
table with a goodly number of rows.