From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | 'Michael Meskes' <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: eWeek Poll: Which database is most critical to your |
Date: | 2002-02-28 09:03:41 |
Message-ID: | FED2B709E3270E4B903EB0175A49BCB1047648@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Meskes [mailto:meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 07:04
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] eWeek Poll: Which database is most
> critical to your
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:39:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I cannot believe that caching results for
> literally-identical queries
> > is a win, except perhaps for the most specialized (read brain dead)
>
> I don't think they are brain dead. Well that is at first I
> thought so too, but then thinking some more it made sense.
> After all MySQL is used mostly for web pages and even your
> dynamic content doesn't change that often. But in between
> there are thousands of concurrent access that all execute the
> very same statement. This feature makes no sense IMO for the
> "normal" use we both probably had in mind when first reading,
> but for this web usage I see a benefit if it's implementable.
Everytime someone browses http://pgadmin.postgresql.org/ this is exactly
what's going on, as well as (I imagine) with Vince's interactive docs.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Paul ARGUDO | 2002-02-28 09:32:48 | Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-02-28 09:00:00 | Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c ) |