Re: [PERFORM] perf problem with huge table

Dave Crooke wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Jon Lewison > wrote: > > > > Just a nit, but Oracle implements MVCC. 90% of the databases out > there do. > > > Sorry, I spoke imprecisely. What I meant was the difference in how the > rows are stored i

Re: [PERFORM] some problems when i use postgresql 8.4.2 in my projects .

wyx6...@sina.com wrote: > after shaming , I think i should pick out some my points: > the unique constraints actualy kill concurrency write transaction when > concurrency insert violate the unique constraints , they block each > other , i test this in oracle10g, has the same behavour. I think this

Re: [PERFORM] Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare

Kevin Grittner wrote: > Leo Mannhart wrote: > >> You could also try to just update the whole table in one go, it is >> probably faster than you expect. > > That would, of course, bloat the table and indexes horribly. One > advantage of the incremental approach is

Re: [PERFORM] Massive table (500M rows) update nightmare

Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > Our DB has an audit table which is 500M rows and growing. (FYI the > objects being audited are grouped semantically, not individual field > values). > > Recently we wanted to add a new feature and we altered the table to add > a new column. We are backfilling this varchar