Re: [HACKERS] Is this a better MVCC.

2002-04-16 Thread Lincoln Yeoh
On 7.1.x it definitely gets slower even for indexscans. e.g. 60 updates/sec dropping to 30 then to 20 over time. Is this fixed for 7.2? If not, is it possible to make the pointer point to the latest row instead of the most obsolete one, and having the newer rows point to the older ones, inste

Re: [HACKERS] Is this a better MVCC.

2002-04-16 Thread Tom Lane
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, what if we did it another way, copy the old version of the row into the > new row and update the tuple in place? I don't think we can get away with moving the extant tuple. If we did, a concurrent scan that should have found the old tuple might miss it. (Th

[HACKERS] Is this a better MVCC.

2002-04-16 Thread mlw
I just had an interesting idea. It sounds too easy to beleve, but hear me out and correct me if I'm wrong. Currently, during update, PostgreSQL takes the existing record, modifyies it, and adds it as a new row. The previous record has a pointer to the new version. If the row is updated twice, the