From: Holger Hoffstaette <holger@wizards.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ??: Postgresql update op is very very slow
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:40:59 +0200
Message-ID: <pan.2008.06.26.12.40.59.151500@wizards.de> (raw)
References: <473587.97248.qm@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<op.uc83c7m2cigqcu@apollo13.peufeu.com>
<004b01c8d671$3dec1630$0544000a@hz.ali.com>
<486219B6.7050003@enterprisedb.com>
<005101c8d773$ff81b2c0$0644000a@hz.ali.com>
<48638939.5080500@enterprisedb.com>
Hi -
I have been following this thread and find some of the recommendations
really surprising. I understand that MVCC necessarily creates overhead,
in-place updates would not be safe against crashes etc. but have a hard
time believing that this is such a huge problem for RDBMS in 2008. How do
large databases treat mass updates? AFAIK both DB2 and Oracle use MVCC
(maybe a different kind?) as well, but I cannot believe that large updates
still pose such big problems.
Are there no options (algorithms) for adaptively choosing different
update strategies that do not incur the full MVCC overhead?
Holger
(Disclaimer: I'm not a professional DBA, just a curious developer).
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: holger@wizards.de
Subject: Re: ??: Postgresql update op is very very slow
In-Reply-To: <pan.2008.06.26.12.40.59.151500@wizards.de>
* 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