Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, there's no free lunch --- the price we pay for escaping
> rollback-segment-overflow is table bloat if you don't vacuum often
> enough.
Well it's worse than that. If you have long-running transactions that would
cause rollback-segment-overflow in Oracle then the equivalent price in
Postgres would be table bloat *regardless* of how frequently you vacuum.
I suppose you can argue it's not "bloat" as long as you reach a steady state.
But the extra space in the tables is a performance cost on every sequential
scan and on every cache miss it causes whatever you call it.
I'm not saying I like rollback segments better, just yes, TANSTAAFL.
--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
