| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions |
| Date: | 2009-06-01 18:57:12 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0906011157td9dc46bvf8cdb7518a386d42@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Since some (like MS SQL Server) allow users to choose
>> snapshot isolation or blocking-based serializable transactions in
>> their MVCC implementation
>
> This approach allowed MSSQL to "clean up" on TPCE; to date their performance
> on that benchmark is so much better than anyone else nobody else wants to
> publish.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of some other feature? An
implementation of Serializable transactions isn't going to suddenly
make MSSQL faster than Oracle which uses snapshots anyways.
From what I remember TPC-E actually spends most of its energy testing
things like check constraints, referential integrity checks, and
complex queries. What you describe is possible but it's seems more
likely to be due to some kind of optimization like materialized views
or cached query results or something like that.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-06-01 18:57:32 | Re: search_path improvements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-01 18:46:34 | Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up |