From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Date: | 2013-11-17 22:31:31 |
Message-ID: | 20131117223131.GB2473@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:33:30PM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote:
> I think I have to add, that pure speed of a read-mostly database is the
> main scenario I have in mind.
> Duration, High-availability and Scaling out are perhaps additional or
> separate scenarios.
>
> So, to come back to my question: I think that Postgres could be even faster
> by magnitudes, if the assumption of writing to slow secondary storage (like
> disks) is removed (or replaced).
If your dataset fits in memory then the problem is trivial: any decent
programming language provides you with all the necessary tools to deal
with data purely in memory. There are also quite a lot of databases
that cover this area.
PostgreSQL excels in the area where your data is much larger than your
memory. This is a much more difficult problem and I think one worth
focussing on. Pure in memory databases are just not as interesting.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Brandl | 2013-11-17 22:46:07 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Previous Message | Edson Richter | 2013-11-17 22:09:07 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |