| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anon Mous <soundami(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql Caching |
| Date: | 2006-10-15 19:55:08 |
| Message-ID: | 25440.1160942108@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com> writes:
> mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc wrote:
>> None of this avoids the cost of query planning, or query execution.
> No but you can avoid costly disk access and still have the postgres
> level of integrity and integration that memcached doesn't offer.
If you're just trying to cache data, it's not clear what you are doing
that the shared buffer cache and/or kernel-level disk cache doesn't
do already.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc Munro | 2006-10-15 19:57:39 | Re: [PATCHES] New shared memory hooks proposal (was Re: |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-15 19:48:02 | Re: Not quite there on timezone names in timestamp input |