From: | Stephan Fabel <sfabel(at)hawaii(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Q: regarding backends |
Date: | 2013-12-10 20:14:50 |
Message-ID: | 1719259.AXiScAqC78@majestic |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 06:49:01 AM you wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:20:41 -1000 Stephan Fabel <sfabel(at)hawaii(dot)edu> wrote:
> > We'd be very interested in seeing the effects of integrating LMDB [*] in
> > terms of performance gains. Has this avenue been explored before?
>
> I have to say that I'm VERY happy that there's been little to no focus on
> supporting different backend storage in PostgreSQL.
Fair enough...
> For me, this is a database system, not a reality TV show. I'd much rather
> have the focus stay on a tightly integrated, reliable system than have a
> bunch of weird choices that can improve my performance by .5% while causing
> unexpected breakage.
Hardly .5%... - see http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/
I do agree, however, that it is definitively better to focus on one thing and
do it right rather than get lost in a bunch of random choices. The reason I
asked was that it is currently being adopted by a lot of other open source
projects, so I was curious to see what the PostgreSQL community's take on it
was.
Cheers,
Stephan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-12-10 20:27:26 | Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-10 19:43:50 | Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters) |