-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>> SERIALIZABLE is really slow :).
>>> Say what? If anything it's probably faster than READ COMMITTED, because
>>> it doesn't take as many snapshots. But the difference is likely down in
>>> the noise anyway.
>
>> Not in production it isn't.
>
> Well, I can believe that specific applications might be slower overall
> due to having to retry transactions that get serialization failures,
> or perhaps because they take more locks to prevent such failures.
> But it's not slower as far as the database engine is concerned.
Well I can only speak to live production loads. I have never profiled
the difference from that low of a level. I can definitely say that in a
standard web app, under velocity, serializable is a huge performance killer.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1bHqATb/zqfZUUQRAvDMAJ9nEu+9cumsD+P6E7pZmdkEry6V7QCeN1Cz
nRjVC8BoFZb4b+u6ncP8UFo=
=N4gK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----