Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/23/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I see in this discussion is a huge amount of "the grass must be > > greener on the other side" syndrome, and hardly any recognition that > > every technique has its downsides and complications. > > I'm being totally objective. I don't think we should abandon > PostgreSQL's overall design at all, because we do perform INSERTs and > DELETEs much better than most systems. However, I've looked at many > systems and how they implement UPDATE so that it is a scalable > operation. Sure, there are costs and benefits to each implementation, > but I think we have some pretty brilliant people in this community and > can come up with an elegant design for scalable UPDATEs.
I think the UPDATE case is similar to the bitmap index scan or perhaps bitmap indexes on disk --- there are cases we know can not be handled well by our existing code, so we have added (or might add) these features to try to address those difficult cases. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
