Re: configure options

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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