Re: performance of insert/delete/update

On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 19:30, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > > I'm new to postgresql, and as you suggested, this is
> > > counter-intuitive to me.  I would have thought that having to store
> > > all the inserts to be able to roll them back would take longer.  Is
> > > my thinking wrong or not relevant?  Why is this not the case?
> >
> > Typically that is the case.  But Postgresql switches it around a little
> > bit.  Different trade-offs.  No rollback log, but other processes are
> > forced to go through you're left over garbage (hence 'vacuum').
>
> Yeah, which means you always need to do a vacuum on a table after a lot of
> updates/deletes.  And analyze after a lot of inserts/updates/deletes.

A good auto-vacuum daemon will help that out :)  Not really any
different than an OO dbs garbage collection process -- except PGs vacuum
is several orders of magnitude faster.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>