But unless I'm really missing something, how does this help? A database's bottleneck is not thread synchronization, it's atomic writing to disk. Sure, transaction management of in-memory data is costly. But not nearly as costly as writing updates to disk in an infallible manner.
Maybe there are specific database scenarios that really benefit from this. But a read-heavy scenario doesn't have a lot of transactional overhead, and a write-heavy scenario will be bound by disk write performance.
So again, where does this help? I must be totally missing something. Can you help steer me straight?
"How does transactional memory improve disk commits?"
No comments yet. -