| From: | Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | A B <gentosaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Date: | 2010-11-05 12:06:25 |
| Message-ID: | 87lj58vuta.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Marti Raudsepp <marti 'at' juffo.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 13:11, Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> wrote:
>> Don't use PostgreSQL, just drop your data, you will end up with
>> the same results and be even faster than any use of PostgreSQL.
>> If anyone needs data, then just say you had data corruption, and
>> that since 100% dataloss is accepted, then all's well.
>
> You're not helping. There are legitimate reasons for trading off
> safety for performance.
Cccepting 100% dataloss and datacorruption deserves a little
reasoning, otherwise I'm afraid I'm right in suggesting it makes
little difference to use PG or to drop data altogether.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2010-11-05 12:08:26 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-11-05 11:41:33 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |