Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases
Date: 2007-07-05 17:20:44
Message-ID: 20070705172044.GJ17424@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> The question was is there something else that exists in PostgreSQL and
> will do the same job.

Why re-invent the wheel, and make it square? But also, if you don't
care whether you keep your data, why on earth are you putting it in
an RDBMS? Is it because all your pre-built tools already speak SQL?
If you're really after performance, I'm not convinced a SQL-speaking
RDBMS (delivered by MySQL or Postgres or anyone else) is what you
actually need.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
--George Orwell

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nykolyn, Andrew 2007-07-05 17:34:09 Nested Transactions in PL/pgSQL
Previous Message Erik Jones 2007-07-05 16:05:03 Re: perpetual dump/restore problem