| From: | Gene Wirchenko <genew(at)ocis(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Which SQL is the best for servers? |
| Date: | 2009-02-17 03:47:08 |
| Message-ID: | 8kckp4pa37q35r1dtqsebfd97dllrpbsqn@4ax.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Paulie <linehan(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
[snip]
>No CPU data, no disk array data - they haven't even chosen
>an OS and are not sure where to put their web server (and
>no mention of an app server tier!).
It might be a real project, but it has a feel of irreality. I
can not tell if it is wishful thinking or just a homework project.
>Maybe they should run with the mauve db?
Paulie, I am shocked, simply shocked at your poor advice.
OP stated: 'Since the server may come with only 32GB of RAM,
which SQL can run the "leanest" - that is, not a memory hog?'
Remember: mauve has the most RAM, so it would not be appropriate
here.
</silly>
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brent Wood | 2009-02-17 03:50:16 | Re: Update table with random values from another table |
| Previous Message | Jerry Stuckle | 2009-02-17 02:54:17 | Re: Which SQL is the best for servers? |