Re: Again, sorry, caching.

On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 08:15, mlw wrote:
> "Mattew T. O'Connor" wrote:
> >
[snip]

>
> >The primary use that you have suggested is for web sites,
> > and they certainly won't mind of the cache is 0.3seconds out of date.
>
> Again, if they don't care about accuracy, then they will use MySQL. PostgreSQL
> is a far better system. Making PostgreSQL less accurate, less "correct" takes
> away, IMHO, the very reasons to use it.
>

If you are using a web site and you need real time data within 0.3s,
you've implemented on the wrong platform. It's as simple as that. In
the web world, there are few applications where a "0.3s" of a window is
notable. After all, that "0.3s" of a window can be anywhere within the
system, including the web server, network, any front end caches, dns
resolutions, etc.

I tend to agree with Mettew. Granted, there are some application
domains where this can be critical...generally speaking, web serving
isn't one of them.

That's why all of the solutions I offered were pointedly addressing a
web server scenario and not a generalized database cache. I completely
agree with you on that. In a generalized situation, the database should
be managing and caching the data (which it already does).

Greg