On November 16, 2004 08:00 pm, Michael Adler wrote:
> I noticed that some of you left coasters were talking about memcached
> and pgsql. I'm curious to know what was discussed.
> In reading about memcached, it seems that many people are using it to
> circumvent the scalability problems of MySQL (lack of MVCC).
> from their site:
> Shouldn't the database do this?
> Regardless of what database you use (MS-SQL, Oracle, Postgres,
> MysQL-InnoDB, etc..), there's a lot of overhead in implementing ACID
> properties in a RDBMS, especially when disks are involved, which means
> queries are going to block. For databases that aren't ACID-compliant
> (like MySQL-MyISAM), that overhead doesn't exist, but reading threads
> block on the writing threads. memcached never blocks.
> So What does memcached offer pgsql users? It would still seem to offer
> the benefit of a multi-machined cache.
Have a look at the pdf presentation found on the following site:
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Hervé Piedvache||Date: 2004-11-17 17:16:10|
|Subject: Re: Tsearch2 really slower than ilike ?|
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2004-11-17 16:41:10|
|Subject: Re: query plan question|