From: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Adler <adler(at)pobox(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: memcached and PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2004-11-17 17:13:09 |
Message-ID: | 200411170913.09390.darcy@wavefire.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On November 16, 2004 08:00 pm, Michael Adler wrote:
> http://pugs.postgresql.org/sfpug/archives/000021.html
>
> I noticed that some of you left coasters were talking about memcached
> and pgsql. I'm curious to know what was discussed.
>
> In reading about memcached, it seems that many people are using it to
> circumvent the scalability problems of MySQL (lack of MVCC).
>
> from their site:
>
> <snip>
> Shouldn't the database do this?
>
> Regardless of what database you use (MS-SQL, Oracle, Postgres,
> MysQL-InnoDB, etc..), there's a lot of overhead in implementing ACID
> properties in a RDBMS, especially when disks are involved, which means
> queries are going to block. For databases that aren't ACID-compliant
> (like MySQL-MyISAM), that overhead doesn't exist, but reading threads
> block on the writing threads. memcached never blocks.
> </snip>
>
> So What does memcached offer pgsql users? It would still seem to offer
> the benefit of a multi-machined cache.
Have a look at the pdf presentation found on the following site:
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
>
> -Mike
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hervé Piedvache | 2004-11-17 17:16:10 | Re: Tsearch2 really slower than ilike ? |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-11-17 16:41:10 | Re: query plan question |