Re: [HACKERS] Faster Updates

2006-06-05 Thread Jim Nasby
On Jun 3, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Nicolai Petri wrote: On Saturday 03 June 2006 17:27, Tom Lane wrote: PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip - complicated update logic proprosal] What do you think ? Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're [snip - ... bad

Re: [HACKERS] Faster Updates

2006-06-05 Thread Jim Nasby
On Jun 3, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote: PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think ? Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're moving a lot of overhead into SELECT in order to make UPDATE cheaper, and on top of that the restriction to same-page

Re: [HACKERS] Faster Updates

2006-06-03 Thread Tom Lane
PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think ? Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're moving a lot of overhead into SELECT in order to make UPDATE cheaper, and on top of that the restriction to same-page will limit the usefulness quite a lot (unless we

Re: [HACKERS] Faster Updates

2006-06-03 Thread Nicolai Petri
On Saturday 03 June 2006 17:27, Tom Lane wrote: PFC [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip - complicated update logic proprosal] What do you think ? Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're [snip - ... bad idea reasoning] :) What if every backend while