X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142249DC81A for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:27:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66227-04 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:27:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.185.218]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380A29DC82A for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:27:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from rzstud1.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de (rzstud1.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de [193.196.41.33]) by smtp2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1) id 1EogaB-0006Fj-Tz; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:27:08 +0100 Received: from uwi7 by rzstud1.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1EogaD-0006zD-00; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:27:09 +0100 From: Andreas Seltenreich To: Markus Schaber Cc: PostgreSQL Performance List Subject: Re: Read only transactions - Commit or Rollback References: <16F953410A0F1346848DCB476A989CFE01D6AF@swtexchange2.technology.de> <43A7F303.8040804@logix-tt.com> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Schaber , PostgreSQL Performance List , andreas+pg@gate450.dyndns.org X-PGP-Key: 0x2C006B340F8C8C1B X-Face: $:F<87a[gD1?#R6S3j21cr1&C&7bd63GHC.tSdskUb}hhwG(ci*=D5kJ<_N+p9q(7-, PnG. Et.Yh (Markus Schaber's message of "Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:03:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Message-ID: <87mziwj6na.fsf@gate450.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.077 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077] X-Spam-Score: 0.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/485 X-Sequence-Number: 16306 Markus Schaber writes: > As I said, there usually are no writing transactions on the same database. > > 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? regards, Andreas --