From: | "Alexander Todorov" <alexx(dot)todorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases |
Date: | 2007-07-01 18:29:07 |
Message-ID: | 6e97ff300707011129k52a67d0fy1d7b72daa3503ed@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 7/1/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> As long as shared_buffers is high enough, there doesn't seem to be much
> point in worrying about this; the incremental performance gain will be
> minimal since everything will be in RAM anyway.
Yes it will be but this does not mean there will be no disk i/o
operations. Database contents still have to be backed up on disk
(unless there is a mechanism of delayed wrtite to disk which I am not
aware of). The memory engine as designed by MySQL (my interpretation)
is to avoid the disk operations.
> Or do you think losing
> the content of the database at server crash is a feature?
Yes it is. Anything designed to live in memory should be used to hold
non vital information. The loosing/recreation of this information is
implied by design of the application.
One example is bittorent trackers which maintain data about the
connected peers. Since connections are created/destroyed and there are
more selects than insert/updates these applications use memory tables.
Greetings,
Alexander.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-01 18:40:10 | Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-01 18:13:04 | Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases |