Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Date: 2010-06-17 17:29:37
Message-ID: 4C1A5B81.8050908@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

All,

So, I've been discussing this because using PostgreSQL on the caching
layer has become more common that I think most people realize. Jonathan
is one of 4 companies I know of who are doing this, and with the growth
of Hadoop and other large-scale data-processing technologies, I think
demand will increase.

Especially as, in repeated tests, PostgreSQL with persistence turned off
is just as fast as the fastest nondurable NoSQL database. And it has a
LOT more features.

Now, while fsync=off and tmpfs for WAL more-or-less eliminate the IO for
durability, they don't eliminate the CPU time. Which means that a
caching version of PostgreSQL could be even faster. To do that, we'd
need to:

a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
b) Eliminate checkpointing
c) Turn off the background writer
d) Have PostgreSQL refuse to restart after a crash and instead call an
exteral script (for reprovisioning)

Of the three above, (a) is the most difficult codewise. (b)(c) and (d)
should be relatively straightforwards, although I believe that we now
have the bgwriter doing some other essential work besides syncing
buffers. There's also a narrower use-case in eliminating (a), since a
non-fsync'd server which was recording WAL could be used as part of a
replication chain.

This isn't on hackers because I'm not ready to start working on a patch,
but I'd like some feedback on the complexities of doing (b) and (c) as
well as how many people could use a non-persistant, in-memory postgres.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pierre C 2010-06-17 18:44:04 Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Previous Message Jatinder Sangha 2010-06-17 16:57:15 HashAggregate slower than sort?