Re: Again, sorry, caching.

Karel Zak wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 09:01:28AM -0500, mlw wrote:
>
> > "If it is mostly static data, why not just make it a static page?"
> > Because a static page is a maintenance nightmare. One uses a database in a web
> > site to allow content to be changed and upgraded dynamically and with a minimum
> > of work.
>
> It's ugly argumentation for DB cache. What generate web page after data
> change and next time use it as static?
>
> > I was thinking that it could be implemented as a keyword or comment in a query.
> > Such as:
> >
> > select * from table where column = 'foo' cacheable
>
> You can insert "mostly static data" into temp table and in next queries
> use this temp table. After update/delete/insert can your application
> rebuild temp table (or by trigger?).

Yes, I could, as could most of the guys reading these messages. I am thinking
about a feature in PostgreSQL that would make that easier for the average DBA
or web producer.

Lets face it, MySQL wins a lot of people because they put in features that
people want. All the ways people have suggested to "compete" with MySQL's
caching have been ugly kludges.

I understand the there is an amount of work involved with doing caching, and
the value of caching is debatable by some, however, it is demonstrable that
caching can improve a very common, albeit specific, set of deployments. Also,
managing data is the job of the database, not the application. It does belong
in PostgreSQL, if someone is forced to write a caching scheme around
PostgreSQL, it is because PostgreSQL lacks that feature.