Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Table partitioning |
---|---|
Author | Jim Starkey |
Post date | 2004-11-19T12:38:28Z |
Jan Radl wrote:
you are asking for a work around Oracle's bad performance. Firebird
doesn't work the way Oracle does, so a work around in Oracle probably
wouldn't buy anything in Firebird. In specific, Firebird transactions
don't hold page locks, so such of feature is meaningless in Firebird
context.
A better thing to ask for is "faster parallel inserts". And even
better, "I've studied Firebird, I've found a bottleneck, I've worked out
a solution, and I think we ought to implement it."
>>>Ok, let me explain something. You really aren't asking for a feature,
>>>
>>It might be appropriate to say what good it is and/or why you want it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Why i want it ? In case of lot of inserts in one table from dozen of
>clients, partitioned table increase performance due to paralel write to
>this table. If table is not partitioned the write processes are lock
>each other because of write to the same part of disk (db space).
>
>
>
you are asking for a work around Oracle's bad performance. Firebird
doesn't work the way Oracle does, so a work around in Oracle probably
wouldn't buy anything in Firebird. In specific, Firebird transactions
don't hold page locks, so such of feature is meaningless in Firebird
context.
A better thing to ask for is "faster parallel inserts". And even
better, "I've studied Firebird, I've found a bottleneck, I've worked out
a solution, and I think we ought to implement it."