Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight

From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(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 22:06:45
Message-ID: 46BCE175.2060605@pooteeweet.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

Jeff Davis wrote:
> 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.

I cannot give you an exact comparison. But the PostgreSQL docs are
pretty good on how things work there and the following article explains
how things are in Oracle and the rest:
http://www.ibphoenix.com/main.nfs?page=ibp_mvcc_roman

regards,
Lukas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-08-10 22:55:11 In case anyone missed it
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2007-08-10 22:04:30 Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL: fight