Re: In theory question

On May 9, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Hannes Dorbath wrote:

> On 09.05.2007 16:13, Naz Gassiep wrote:
>> This may be a question for -hackers, but I don't like disturbing them
>> unnecessarily.
>> I've been having a look at memcached. I would like to ask, is
>> there any
>> reason that, theoretically, a similar caching system could be built
>> right into the db serving daemon?
>> I.e., the hash tables and libevent could sit on top of postmaster
>> as an
>> optional component caching data on a per-query basis and only hitting
>> the actual db in the event of a cache miss?
>
> I think this is close to what MySQL's query cache does. The
> question is if this should be the job of the DBMS and not another
> layer. At least the pgmemcache author and I think that it's better
> done outside the DBMS. See http://people.FreeBSD.org/~seanc/
> pgmemcache/pgmemcache.pdf for the idea.

I just read through that pdf. How does implementing a memcached
system with table triggers qualify as outside the database?

erik jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>
software developer
615-296-0838
emma(r)