From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Date: | 2010-06-24 19:14:05 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikH3xhfGlxAdA42isKeHw4dcArnDIWX9iFMgHWx@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/6/24 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
>
>> And I'm also planning to implement unlogged tables, which have the
>> same contents for all sessions but are not WAL-logged (and are
>> truncated on startup).
this is similar MySQL's memory tables. Personally, I don't see any
practical sense do same work on PostgreSQL now, when memcached exists.
Much more important is smarter cache controlling then we have now -
maybe with priorities for some tables and some operations
(applications) - sometimes we don't need use cache for extra large
scans.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> Yep. And it's quite possible that this will be adequate for most users.
>
> And it's also possible that the extra CPU which Robert isn't getting rid
> of (bgwriter, checkpointing, etc.) does not have a measurable impact on
> performance. At this point, my idea (which I call
> "RunningWithScissorsDB") is only an idea for experimentation and
> performance testing. It's pretty far off from being a TODO.
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-06-24 19:47:46 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-24 19:00:27 | Re: cpu bound postgresql setup. |