From: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
To: PostgreSQL Performance List <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Read only transactions - Commit or Rollback
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:31:53 +0100
Message-ID: <43A7F9B9.3010906@logix-tt.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mziwj6na.fsf@gate450.dyndns.org>
References: <16F953410A0F1346848DCB476A989CFE01D6AF@swtexchange2.technology.de>
<43A7F303.8040804@logix-tt.com>
<87mziwj6na.fsf@gate450.dyndns.org>
Hello, Andreas,
Andreas Seltenreich wrote:
>>Btw, there's another setting that might make a difference:
>>Having ACID-Level SERIALIZABLE or READ COMMITED?
>
> Well, if nonrepeatable or phantom reads would pose a problem because
> of those occasional writes, you wouldn't be considering autocommit for
> performance reasons either, would you?
Yes, the question is purely performance-wise. We don't care about any
read/write conflicts in this special case.
Some time ago, I had some tests with large bulk insertions, and it
turned out that SERIALIZABLE seemed to be 30% faster, which surprised us.
That's why I ask this questions, and mainly because we currently cannot
perform a large bunch of benchmarking.
Thanks,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: schabi@logix-tt.com
Subject: Re: Read only transactions - Commit or Rollback
In-Reply-To: <43A7F9B9.3010906@logix-tt.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox