| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Rossi <marc_rossi(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATES hang every 5 minutes |
| Date: | 2007-08-10 18:05:24 |
| Message-ID: | 46BCA8E4.1010902@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> It seems to me that the real solution is for me to stop using the database as an IPC system to pass somewhat time-critical data between processes. Given the time constraints I'm working under this unfortunately was the quickest route.
At least for the first 5 minutes. :) I was wondering about that 1,500
updates/second. PostgreSQL is probably not the optimal solution for IPC.
If you are trying to deal with passing this data among machines,
memcached may be a good solution. Pretty easy to configure and clients
for lots of languages. Blazing fast, too.
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-10 18:10:54 | Re: Timestamp in pg_dump output, was Re: How I can know a back up database is up to date |
| Previous Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2007-08-10 17:57:12 | Re: Timestamp in pg_dump output, was Re: How I can know a back up database is up to date |