Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
От | Agent M |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f621d7f4c0aed572719bde8db7d8786f@themactionfaction.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris.kings-lynne@calorieking.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:56 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >> The example is a very active web site, the flow is this: >> query for session information >> process HTTP request >> update session information >> This happens for EVERY http request. Chances are that you won't have >> concurrent requests for the same row, but you may have well over 100 >> HTTP >> server processes/threads answering queries in your web server farm. > > You're crazy :) Use memcache, not the DB :) Still, the database is the one central location that the apaches can connect too- postgres already has a lot of application platform features- locking synchronization, asynchronous notifications, arbitrary pl code. Personally, I think that a special non-MVCC table type could be created- the catalogs are similarly flat. What I envision is a table type that can only be accessed "outside" transactions (like AutoCommit mode)- this is already possible to implement in plperl for a single session. It would be more efficient to have something like a global temp table hanging around... Just some random ideas... -M ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ AgentM agentm@themactionfaction.com ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: