| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight |
| Date: | 2007-08-10 22:04:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1186783471.27681.43.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 16:11 -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 09:24:24AM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > Greg Smith wrote:
> >
> > >http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-next-key-locking.html
> > >http://www.greatlinux.com/mysql/books/mysqlpress/mysql-tutorial/ch10.html
> >
> > I recently covered a related item (prevting phantom rows) regarding
> > MySQL in my blog:
> > http://pooteeweet.org/blog/745
>
> Wait... isn't InnoDB an MVCC system? Why do they need gap locking at
> all? Shouldn't they be able to just pull the right version?
Is there a document explaining more of the differences between the
postgresql MVCC model and something closer to InnoDB or Oracle, where it
has rollback segments? I'm interested in the design tradeoffs between
the two ideas.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Kahwe Smith | 2007-08-10 22:06:45 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-10 21:11:07 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight |