Re: vacuum locking
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum locking |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87ekx2uqle.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum locking (Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum locking
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Rob Nagler <nagler@bivio.biz> writes: > Mario Weilguni writes: > > 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. I don't understand why you would expect overwriting to win here. What types of updates do you do on these tables? Normally I found using update on such a table was too awkward to contemplate so I just delete all the relation records that I'm replacing for the key I'm working with and insert new ones. This always works out to be cleaner code. In fact I usually leave such tables with no UPDATE grants on them. In that situation I would have actually expected Postgres to do as well as or better than Oracle since that makes them both functionally equivalent. -- greg
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: