Re: How to keep a table in memory?

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:55:09PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Cost is always an issue, even if implicit. If the person is so hung up
> on the idea of pushing things into ram there is a pretty good
> possibility they have priced out the 50 and 100 spindle devices needed
> to get the same type of performance.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The OP was claiming that this approach was
what worked for him with MS SQL Server, which makes me think that this is
the usual human habit of generalizing widely from a particular. That is,
"X was a solution that worked once with another product, so I want to know
how to do X with your product." We get these questions all the time, partly
because one has to re-learn all sorts of things when moving to PostgreSQL.
For instance, most of the traditional real database systems don't
collaborate with the OS in memory and cache management.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke