From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Harpreet Dhaliwal" <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres (selection of thesis topic) |
Date: | 2007-05-02 13:00:59 |
Message-ID: | 88daf38c0705020600t2a9562eauc669ae5e75be160b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 5/2/07, Harpreet Dhaliwal <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm kind of new to postgresql and the project that I'm working on currently
> deals with parsing emails, storing parsed components in postgresql DB and
> fire triggers
> on certain inserts that opens socket connection with a unix tools server,
Are you sure it is a good idea to do this processing synchronously?
What happens if there is a network problem? It sounds like an
inefficient and inflexible design.
> I have done alot of homework on this and could think of something like "bulk
> of data storage in email parsing and how vacuuming it would increase the
> performance" because i think this vacuum DB concept is not there in other
> RDBMS.
SQLite also requires vacuuming, as does other databases based on
MVCC-like designs, although some (eg., Oracle with its redo logs,
iirc) do their housekeeping behind the scenes.
Alexander.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-02 13:30:50 | Re: PostgreSql replication and load balancing ( is Slony-I a solution?) |
Previous Message | Alexander Staubo | 2007-05-02 12:51:10 | Re: PostgreSql replication and load balancing ( is Slony-I a solution?) |