From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Date: | 2010-06-24 20:01:49 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilGXAKSPDBLLcsH4Jrc6XgnFhuEqSHkcfLryajl@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/6/24 Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 21:14 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2010/6/24 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
>> >
>> >> And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
>> >> same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
>> >> truncated on startup).
>>
>> this is similar MySQL's memory tables. Personally, I don't see any
>> practical sense do same work on PostgreSQL now, when memcached exists.
>
> Because memcache is yet another layer and increases overhead to the
> application developers by adding yet another layer to work with. Non
> logged tables would rock.
I see only one positive point - it can help to people with broken
design application with migration to PostgreSQL.
There are different interesting feature - cached procedure's results
like Oracle 11. - it's more general.
only idea.
For me memory tables are nonsens, but what about memory cached
materialised views (maybe periodically refreshed)?
Regards
Pavel
>
> SELECT * FROM foo;
>
> :D
:)
>
> JD
>
>
>
>
> --
> PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
> Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
> Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | A.M. | 2010-06-24 20:38:45 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-06-24 19:47:46 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |