| From: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Fabel <sfabel(at)hawaii(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Q: regarding backends |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 15:02:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAB8KJ=iebhM3n_OJzHV-V-OMFbCp8UM1OYm0UurzRPpgvbstrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2013/12/10 Stephan Fabel <sfabel(at)hawaii(dot)edu>:
> Hi all,
>
> and sorry if I'm asking a question that has been answered before; has the
> PostgreSQL community ever considered different key/value backends (sort of like
> MySQL with its many different options)?
>
> We'd be very interested in seeing the effects of integrating LMDB [*] in terms
> of performance gains. Has this avenue been explored before?
There was talk of pluggable storage at this year's PGCon (PGUncon?):
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/2013UnconfPluggableStorage
but even if the idea gains traction, it's not going to arrive any time soon.
As Kevin mentions, FDWs might provide a good alternative. An example
with key/value stores I've been citing recently is this one:
http://blog.cloudflare.com/kyoto_tycoon_with_postgresql
Regards
Ian Barwick
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-12-10 15:03:42 | Re: add parameter to existing function |
| Previous Message | misspaola | 2013-12-10 14:53:13 | DB Audit |