Am Donnerstag, den 11.08.2005, 14:08 +0200 schrieb PFC:
> > You could lock the count table to prevent the problem
> > where 2 competing transactions do an insert, read the
> > start value and add 1 to it and then write the result
> > - which is n+1 rather then n+2 - so you are off by one.
> > Think of the same when one transaction inserts 100
> > and the other 120. Then you could even be off by 100.
>       Niet.
>       If your trigger does UPDATE counts_cache SET cached_count =  
> cached_count+N WHERE ...
>       Then all locking is taken care of by Postgres.
>       Of course if you use 2 queries then you have locking issues.

Yes, in the case you use just the UPDATE statement you are right. This
does the locking I was talking about.

In either case I'd use an after trigger and not before to minimize
the impact.

>       However the UPDATE counts_cache has a problem, ie. it locks this row 
> FOR  
> UPDATE for the whole transaction, and all transactions which want to  
> update the same row must wait to see if the update commits or rollbacks,  
> so if you have one count cache row for the whole table you get MySQL style  
> scalability...
>       To preserve scalability you could, instead of UPDATE, INSERT the delta 
> of  
> rows inserted/deleted in a table (which has no concurrencies issues) and  
> compute the current count with the sum() of the deltas, then with a cron,  
> consolidate the deltas and update the count_cache table so that the deltas  
> table stays very small.

Yes, this is in fact a better approach to this problem.

(All this provided you want an unqualified count() - as the 
 original poster)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to