Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?

On 2014-04-01 04:20, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sunday, March 30, 2014, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> 2013/11/20 Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com');>>
>
>
> I don't know what you mean about enhancements in the buffer
> pool. For an in-memory database, there shouldn't be a buffer
> pool in the first place, as it is *all* in memory.
>
>
> You are right: In-memory DBs are making buffer-pooling obsolete -
> except for making data persistent (see below).
>
>
>
> I would be very reluctant to use any database engine which considered
> disk access obsolete.

The disk is not obsolete but something called 'anti-caching' is used:
http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol6/p1942-debrabant.pdf

> Are there any show cases out there?
>
>
> What did the HANA users have to say? Seems like they would be in the
> best position to provide the test cases.

This paper provides some insights into the research behind HANA
http://www.sigmod09.org/images/sigmod1ktp-plattner.pdf

regards
Yeb