| From: | Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres low end processing. |
| Date: | 2003-10-03 16:10:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20031003181002.20cc6912.svb@ucs.co.za |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:42:54 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
=> Are you sure you want Postgres, and not something smaller? BDB,
=> or SQL Lite, for example?
I have considered various options, including BDB and SQL Lite, but
alas, it will have to be postgres if it's going to be a database. Otherwise
it will be back to the original idea of flat .idx files :(
=> "Postgres is bloatware by design: it was built to house PhD theses."
=> -- J. Hellerstein (who ought to know)
:o) Believe me, I've been amazed since I encountered postgres v6.3.2
in '98
=> But having said that ... given virtual memory and cramped configuration
=> settings, Postgres would certainly run in an 8M machine. Maybe "crawl"
=> would be a more applicable verb than "run", but you could execute it.
Crawling is ok. Won't differ much from normal operation on a machine like that.
Any tips on how to achieve the most diminutive vmem an conf settings?
I tried to figure this out from the docs, and played around with
backend/storage , but I'm not really winning.
Regards
Stef
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-10-03 16:11:17 | Re: administration with pgaccess |
| Previous Message | Robert Wille | 2003-10-03 16:07:41 | Re: LC_COLLATE=C not working |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-03 16:32:00 | Re: Postgres low end processing. |
| Previous Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2003-10-03 15:48:39 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |