> Off the cuff, I would take it to be that one UPDATE is faster than one > SELECT, but only up to a certain concurrency rate, after which the > non-locking SELECT is faster. Yes, no? Are there some statistics we can > put to this?
In any case an update cannot be cached, an select can. > This smacks of needing a configuration option so that a site can use the > method best for their own usage pattern. As long as the defaults are sane enough for the average joe, not just us expert users.
