From: | Matt Clark <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | 'Aaron Werman' <awerman2(at)hotmail(dot)com>, 'Scott Kirkwood' <scottakirkwood(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Caching of Queries |
Date: | 2004-09-27 21:35:42 |
Message-ID: | 415887AE.6070909@ymogen.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>More to the point though, I think this is a feature that really really
>>should be in the DB, because then it's trivial for people to use.
>>
>>
>
>How does putting it into PGPool make it any less trivial for people to
>use?
>
The answers are at http://www2b.biglobe.ne.jp/~caco/pgpool/index-e.html
. Specifically, it's a separate application that needs configuration,
the homepage has no real discussion of the potential pitfalls of pooling
and what this implementation does to get around them, you get the idea.
I'm sure it's great software, but it doesn't come as part of the DB
server, so 95% of people who would benefit from query caching being
implemented in it never will. If it shipped with and was turned on by
default in SUSE or RedHat that would be a different matter. Which I
realise makes me look like one of those people who doesn't appreciate
code unless it's 'popular', but I hope I'm not *that* bad...
Oh OK, I'll say it, this is a perfect example of why My*** has so much
more mindshare. It's not better, but it sure makes the average Joe
_feel_ better. Sorry, I've got my corporate hat on today, I'm sure I'll
feel a little less cynical tomorrow.
M
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt Clark | 2004-09-27 21:41:52 | Re: Caching of Queries |
Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2004-09-27 20:53:45 | Re: Caching of Queries |