Re: simple database?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:25:48AM -0600, dman wrote:
[snip]
> yielded faster responses. However (at the time at least) its locking
> was table-level. This means that if someone is updating a row in a
> table, then no one else can read any other row in that table.
> PostgreSQL had more overhead on the small side of things, but for the
> many thousands of hits per minute SF had it performed much better.
> postgres has row-level locking. In the scenario above the users
PostgreSQL use Multi Version Concurrency Control, not locks. But,
who cares? Does it provided transaction isolation and serializability?
Yes (depending on configuration). Near as I can tell, the MVCC method
is something like using semaphores... But note: in serializable mode,
updates may block reads by other processess (select for update ...).
--
Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: