From: | Michael Robinson <robinson(at)netrinsics(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | ROLAP (was Re: A test to add to the crashme test) |
Date: | 2000-05-23 04:36:16 |
Message-ID: | 200005230436.MAA35948@netrinsics.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu> writes:
>On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 03:46:39PM +0800, Michael Robinson wrote:
>> MySQL is extremely well suited for it: the data is essentially "read-only"
>> so transactions, locking, etc., are not an issue,
>
>People keep claiming that applications that are essentially "read-only"
>don't need transactions. I'll agree in the limit, that truly read only
>databases don't, but I think a lot of people might be surprised at how
>little writing you need before you get into trouble.
Very true. However, if you can guarantee that there is only ever one
writer (e.g., a batch process), and you don't mind the occasional dirty
read, you don't need any locking at all.
-Michael Robinson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-23 04:59:57 | Re: port v7.0 to SGI-IRIX-6.5.7/64 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-23 04:02:57 | Re: [BUGS] port v7.0 to SGI-IRIX-6.5.7/64 |