←back to thread

366 points virtualwhys | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.44s | source
Show context
fweimer ◴[] No.41897588[source]
The big advantage is that you do not need any extra space if your workload mostly consists of INSERTs (followed by table drops). And it's generally unnecessary to split up insertion transactions because there is no size limit as such (neither on the generated data or the total count of rows changed). There is a limit on statements in a transaction, but you can sidestep that by using COPY FROM if you do not have to switch tables too frequently. From a DBA point of view, there is no need to manage a rollback/undo space separately from table storage.

Every application is a bit different, but it's not that the PostgreSQL design is a loser in all regards. It's not like bubble sort.

replies(4): >>41897732 #>>41902493 #>>41904079 #>>41905601 #
indulona ◴[] No.41897732[source]
> but it's not that the PostgreSQL design is a loser in all regards

the article literally says that pg's mvcc design is from the 90s and no one does it like that any more. that is technology that is outdated by over 30 years. i'd say it does not make it a loser in all regards, but in the most important aspects.

replies(4): >>41898162 #>>41898235 #>>41898303 #>>41902986 #
1. naranha ◴[] No.41898162[source]
At least couchdb is also append only with vacuum. So it's maybe not completely outdated.
replies(1): >>41898658 #
2. jbellis ◴[] No.41898658[source]
High performance has never been a reason to use couchdb.