| From: | Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Date: | 2010-11-05 12:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 87hbfwvupx.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Marti Raudsepp <marti 'at' juffo.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:32, A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was just thinking about the case where I will have almost 100%
>> selects, but still needs something better than a plain key-value
>> storage so I can do some sql queries.
>> The server will just boot, load data, run, hopefully not crash but if
>> it would, just start over with load and run.
>
> If you want fast read queries then changing
> fsync/full_page_writes/synchronous_commit won't help you.
That illustrates how knowing the reasoning of this particular
requests makes new suggestions worthwhile, while previous ones
are now seen as useless.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2010-11-05 12:12:09 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2010-11-05 12:06:25 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |