Re: Is There Any Way ....

From: Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is There Any Way ....
Date: 2005-10-05 15:05:43
Message-ID: 20051005100543.4b19d4fe.frank@wiles.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> wrote:

> Then there's the large library of research on caching strategies
> in just about every HW and SW domain, including DB theory,
> that points put that the more context dependent, ie application
> or domain specific awareness, caching strategies are the better
> they are.

Isn't this also a very strong argument for putting your caching
into your application and not at the database level?

As you say the more "application or domain specific" it is the better.
I don't see how PostgreSQL is going to magically determine what
is perfect for everyone's differing needs and implement it for you.

Even rudimentary controls such "always keep this
table/index/whatever in RAM" aren't as fine grained or specific
enough to get full benefit.

My suggestion is to use something like memcached to store your
data in, based on the particular needs of your application. This
puts all of the control in the hands of the programmer where, in
my opinion, it belongs.

Just to clarify, I'm not entirely against the idea, but I certainly
think there are other areas of PostgreSQL we should be focusing our
efforts.

---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Lonergan 2005-10-05 15:24:07 Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Previous Message Alex Turner 2005-10-05 15:03:03 Re: Indexes on ramdisk