PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
boringsql.com
PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#2I'm surprised that Interbase/Firebird seems to be entirely omitted from this despite pioneering the MVCC approach.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#3I'm surprised that Interbase/Firebird seems to be entirely omitted from this despite pioneering the MVCC approach.
OP here, I acctually had Firebird listed in some version of my draft, but had to make a natural cut somewhere.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#4I'm surprised that Interbase/Firebird seems to be entirely omitted from this despite pioneering the MVCC approach.
OP here, I acctually had Firebird listed in some version of my draft, but had to make a natural cut somewhere.
I see. I guess that makes sense, popularity-wise. I imagine the results were in the vicinity of PostgreSQL anyway, considering the similarity of approaches.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#5[deleted]
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP here, I acctually had Firebird listed in some version of my draft, but had to make a natural cut somewhere.
I see. I guess that makes sense, popularity-wise. I imagine the results were in the vicinity of PostgreSQL anyway, considering the similarity of approaches.
I had to make a cut - and that's also a reason why etcd got mentioned - focused on what most people today know.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#7I'm conflicted with this article. It does pack a lot of good information in there, and it's a useful comparison of the core difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. But it still contains a lot of LLM-isms which are off putting and make me want to stop reading when I see them.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#8> Nothing was solved. The four questions got new answers, and the costs moved into the compactor.
I have been meaning to write on this topic and in relation to LSM for a while. So, I appreciated that note on LSMs. There are no free ~lunches~ reads or writes.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#9I'm conflicted with this article. It does pack a lot of good information in there, and it's a useful comparison of the core difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL. But it still contains a lot of LLM-isms which are off putting and make me want to stop reading when I see them.
OP here, thanks for the feedback. Just curious - anything specific? I spent long time getting to some sort of framework for my writing and being called LLM is my constant struggle.
PS: I do use LLM for polish, etc.
Re: PostgreSQL's MVCC is bad. So is everyone else's
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. I guess that makes sense, popularity-wise. I imagine the results were in the vicinity of PostgreSQL anyway, considering the similarity of approaches.
I had to make a cut - and that's also a reason why etcd got mentioned - focused on what most people today know.
but that approach doesn't teach "most of your audience" something new that they didn't know before