"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
> 
> > I know people who rollback most of their transactions
> > (actually they use it to emulate temp tables when reporting).
> 
> Shouldn't they use TEMP tables? -:)

They probably should.

Actually they did it on Oracle, so it shows that it can be done 
even with O-smgr ;)

> > OTOH it is possible to do without rolling back at all as
> > MySQL folks have shown us ;)
> 
> Not with SDB tables which support transactions.

My point was that MySQL was used quite a long time without it 
and still quite many useful applications were produced.

BTW, do you know what strategy is used by BSDDB/SDB for 
rollback/undo ?

---------------
Hannu

Tue, 29 May 2001 22:07:16 +0500
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
> > > Seems overwrite smgr has mainly advantages in terms of
> > > speed for operations other than rollback.
> > 
> > ... And rollback is required for < 5% transactions ...
> 
> This obviously depends on application. 

Small number of aborted transactions was used to show
useless of UNDO in terms of space cleanup - that's why
I use same argument to show usefulness of O-smgr -:)

> I know people who rollback most of their transactions
> (actually they use it to emulate temp tables when reporting). 

Shouldn't they use TEMP tables? -:)

> OTOH it is possible to do without rolling back at all as
> MySQL folks have shown us ;)

Not with SDB tables which support transactions.

Vadim

Tue, 29 May 2001 10:49:12 -0700
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem