Re: PostgreSQL on RAM Disk / tmpfs

From: "Thomas F(dot) O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PgSQL-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on RAM Disk / tmpfs
Date: 2006-08-08 21:51:09
Message-ID: A02581DF-D835-456B-8E40-6276A3568525@sitening.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> On 8/8/06, Thomas F. O'Connell <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> > if have super high write volumes, consider writing your insert
>> call in
>> > C. prepare your statement, and use the parameterized
>> > version....ExecPrepared(...).
>>
>> Can you point to a good example of this anywhere in the docs? I don't
>> see ExecPrepared anywhere in the core documentation.
>
> well, it's actually PQexecPrepared()
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/libpq-exec.html
>
> do some tests and you should see a nice improvement over PQexec().

Thanks!

I remain curious, though: in the event that a RAM-disk-based
architecture remains in place, do all traditional disk-based
considerations go out the window? For instance, does trying to
cluster same-table statements together in a transaction in an effort
to reduce disk activity make any difference?

And is the overall strategy of attempting to keep distance between
checkpoints somewhat high (especially since the need for
checkpointing overall is reduced) still a good basis?

--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Sitening, LLC

http://www.sitening.com/
3004B Poston Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203-1314
615-469-5150 x802
615-469-5151 (fax)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Jones 2006-08-08 22:39:43 Re: Why is default value not working on insert?
Previous Message Jasbinder Bali 2006-08-08 21:45:59 Re: DB connectivity from a client machine