From: | Siddharth Shah <siddharth(dot)shah(at)elitecore(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: configure options |
Date: | 2008-12-01 13:24:21 |
Message-ID: | 4933E585.2060802@elitecore.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Siddharth Shah <siddharth(dot)shah(at)elitecore(dot)com> writes:
>
>> In My Application I have only 256MB storage device and I have to
>> manage many other application in same storage
>>
>
> Quite honestly, you're going to need some other database besides
> Postgres if you need a disk footprint that's only a fraction of 256MB.
> It's just not designed for that. Maybe sqllite or bdb would be closer
> to what you need.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
Hi Tom,
I have explored SQLite & DBD but they have limitations on concurrency
My Requirement falls In between lighter & enterprise databases
So finally concluded postgres, My database size on pg is almost 12 MB
Does any cons which I am going to face with pg with slower size then
please mention.
Transaction frequencies : more select queries than insert / update
Almost 20 queries/sec is executing with current database.
- Siddharth
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | elekis | 2008-12-01 14:17:46 | Re: Cannot open include file: 'nodes/nodes.h' |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-01 13:22:44 | Re: Indexes on NULL's and order by ... limit N queries |