| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "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: | 2007-08-11 03:17:53 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920708102017u15db25e6l7bbc5772355ca5f9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 8/10/07, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Not really, but the best reference is Transactional Information
Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control
by Weikum & Vossen. PostgreSQL uses multi-version timestamp ordering
(MVTO) and Oracle/InnoDB use multi-version read consistency (MVRC).
The main difference is that PostgreSQL is with-REDO/no-UNDO because it
stores every row version in the main table, and Oracle/InnoDB are
with-REDO/with-UNDO and they reconstruct a block and/or row image from
the log to provide read consistency.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-11 03:34:56 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-10 22:55:11 | In case anyone missed it |