Re: No heap lookups on index

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: No heap lookups on index
Date: 2006-01-19 01:25:34
Message-ID: 5987.1137633934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Oracle does, but you pay in other ways. Instead of keeping dead tuples
>> in the main heap, they shuffle them off to an 'undo log'. This has some
>> downsides:
>> Rollbacks take *forever*, though this usually isn't much of an issue
>> unless you need to abort a really big transaction.

> It's a good point though. Surely a database should be optimised for the
> most common operation - commits, rather than rollbacks?

The "shuffling off" of the data is expensive in itself, so I'm not sure
you can argue that the Oracle way is more optimal for commits either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-19 01:27:15 Re: No heap lookups on index
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-01-19 01:22:15 Re: PostgreSQL Top 10 Wishlist

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-19 01:27:15 Re: No heap lookups on index
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-19 01:20:17 Re: No heap lookups on index