From: | raf <raf(at)raf(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Redis 16 times faster than Postgres? |
Date: | 2019-09-30 03:05:55 |
Message-ID: | 20190930030555.souzqyifygxned44@raf.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:46:14 +1000
> Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Redis is a in memory database so I would except it to be always much
> > faster..
>
> Is there a way to have Redis periodically update an on-disk backup?
> That would be great, but otherwise you're at the mercy of your power
> company (here in Central Florida it's routine for power to go down and
> stay down for five hours).
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Author: The Key to Everyday Excellence
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/key
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
i don't know but voltdb, another in-memory database,
replicates to other instances which can be in different
geographical locations and so not prone to a single
power failure. perhaps all in-memory databases are
aware of the need for this.
cheers,
raf
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2019-09-30 03:44:13 | Re: Redis 16 times faster than Postgres? |
Previous Message | Steve Litt | 2019-09-30 01:09:52 | Re: Redis 16 times faster than Postgres? |