From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Brandl <ml(at)3(dot)141592654(dot)de>, pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Date: | 2013-11-19 14:30:31 |
Message-ID: | 528B7607.6080802@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/17/2013 07:02 PM, Stefan Keller wrote:
> 2013/11/18 Andreas Brandl <ml(at)3(dot)141592654(dot)de
> <mailto:ml(at)3(dot)141592654(dot)de>> wrote:
> > What is your use-case?
>
> It's geospatial data from OpenStreetMap stored in a schema optimized
> for PostGIS extension (produced by osm2pgsql).
>
> BTW: Having said (to Martijn) that using Postgres is probably more
> efficient, than programming an in-memory database in a decent
> language: OpenStreetMap has a very, very large Node table which is
> heavily used by other tables (like ways) - and becomes rather slow in
> Postgres. Since it's of fixed length I'm looking at
> file_fixed_length_record_fdw extension [1][2] (which is in-memory) to
> get the best of both worlds.
>
> --Stefan
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign_data_wrappers#file_fixed_length_record_fdw
> [2] https://github.com/adunstan/file_fixed_length_record_fdw
First. please don't top-post on the PostgreSQL lists. See
<http://idallen.com/topposting.html>
Second, what the heck makes you think that this is in any sense
in-memory? You can process a multi-terabyte fixed length file. It's not
held in memory.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | bricklen | 2013-11-19 14:32:01 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-11-19 12:55:18 | Re: ERROR: out of memory DETAIL: Failed on request of size ??? |