Re: [SQL] Transactional vs. Read-only (Retrieval) database

Hi Josh,

Thank you very much for your input.

About managing disk access and memory, do you know how to ensure the
"read-only (to do the search on)" tables(i.e. product catalog) loaded and
stay loaded in memory (provided buffer size is big enough for those tables)
? Are you familiar with RAMDISK ?

On different subject, do you know how to monitor the number of connections
in PostgreSQL ?

Regards,
Samuel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Samuel J. Sutjiono" <ssutjiono(at)wc-group(dot)com>;
<pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] Transactional vs. Read-only (Retrieval) database

> Sam,
>
> > I'd like to get some opinions if there are any benefits (i.e. in
> > terms of performance) of creating two separate databases, one for
> > transactions (insert, update, delete) and the other one is for
> > retrieval/search (select).
>
> No. Not in Postgresql, unless you wanted to get really exotic. Also,
> keep in mind that you cannot join tables from seperate databases in
> postgresql.
>
> There are *lots* of performance advantages to be had by managing disk
> access and memory carefully. But not through seperate databases.
>
> -Josh Berkus
>