Re: Postgresql "FIFO" Tables, How-To ?
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgresql "FIFO" Tables, How-To ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F15CF9A.27760.205495A@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgresql "FIFO" Tables, How-To ? ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:13, scott.marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > It would be a bad idea to update the control table itself. You need to release > > the lock with transaction commit.( I hope it gets released with the commit) If > > you update control table, you would generate a dead row for every insertion in > > main table which could be a major performance penalty for sizes you are talking > > about. > > > > Frankly I would like to know fist why do you want to do this. Unless there are > > good enough practical reasons, I would not recommend this approach at all. Can > > you tell us why do you want to do this? > > If he only needs an approximate number of rows (i.e. having max +/- 100 > rows is ok...) then maybe just use a sequence and delete any rows that > are current_max_seq - max_records??? Surely there are more than one way to do it depending upon how much strict OP wants to be. This seems to be a much better solution along with periodic vacuum analyze if required. Bye Shridhar -- "On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a 'BREAK'- everything else having been assigned functions by Gnu EMACS."(By Tarl Neustaedter)
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: