| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres low end processing. |
| Date: | 2003-10-03 15:42:54 |
| Message-ID: | 24646.1065195774@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> I've been trying to find out if some guidelines
> exist, somewhere, describing how postgres
> can possibly run on less than 8MB of RAM.
Are you sure you want Postgres, and not something smaller? BDB,
or SQL Lite, for example?
"Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house PhD theses."
-- J. Hellerstein (who ought to know)
But having said that ... given virtual memory and cramped configuration
settings, Postgres would certainly run in an 8M machine. Maybe "crawl"
would be a more applicable verb than "run", but you could execute it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew L. Gould | 2003-10-03 15:48:58 | Re: Schema backup |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-10-03 15:37:43 | Re: Server recommendations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2003-10-03 15:48:39 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-10-03 14:47:43 | Re: Is This My Speed Limit? |