Re: Simplified (a-la [G|N]DBM) DB access

From: Alexandre <Xlex0x835(at)rambler(dot)ru>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simplified (a-la [G|N]DBM) DB access
Date: 2005-04-21 07:02:11
Message-ID: 9954887419fcbcee74e7a92bab18bf28@rambler.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Chris (and others), thank you for the good explanation! =)
I will try to use database as you recommend, thank you again for the
advices!

Regards,
/Alexandre.

On Apr 20, 2005, at 17:39, Chris Browne wrote:

> I think you're missing two points:
>
> 1. With careful design, the ISAM "wrapper" can _avoid_ most of the
> costs you suggest.
>
> For instance, one might set up a prepared query which would only
> parse, plan, and compile the query _once_.
>
> Further, I'd expect that most of the behaviour could be
> hidden in stored procedures which would further hide the need to
> parse, plan, and compile things. The ISAM-congruent abstraction
> would presumably make it easier to use, to boot.
>
> 2. Dan Sugalski indicated that he actually found the overhead to be
> ignorable.
>
> As a datapoint, that's pretty useful. He actually went thru
> the effort of building the ISAM wrapper, and discovered that
> the overhead wasn't material.
>
> You ought to consider the possibility that perhaps he is right,
> and that perhaps you are trying to optimize something that does
> not need to be optimized.
>
> Remember Michael Jackson's _First Rule of Software Optimization_,
> which is expressed in one word:
>
> Don't.
>
> (And then there's his second rule, for experts: "Don't do it yet.")

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2005-04-21 07:16:17 Re: electronic-izing unicode texts
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2005-04-21 05:30:33 Re: What means Postgres?