"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, I've run simple test (below) to check this. Seems that 7.1 > is faster than 7.0.3 (nofsync), and that SELECT FOR UPDATE in RI > triggers is quite bad for performance. > Also, we should add new TODO item: implement dirty reads > and use them in RI triggers. That would fix RI triggers, I guess, but what about plain SELECT FOR UPDATE being used by applications? Why exactly is SELECT FOR UPDATE such a performance problem for 7.1, anyway? I wouldn't have thought it'd be a big deal... regards, tom lane
- [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Jan Wieck
- RE: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] 7.0.3(nofsync) vs 7.1 Mikheev, Vadim