Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Brandl <ml(at)3(dot)141592654(dot)de>, pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database?
Date: 2013-11-18 18:20:44
Message-ID: CAMkU=1z6P34DVzdYW7uBF9NA-WePy0jjRtXe1Pi3C7CKRwY+DA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 2013/11/18 Andreas Brandl <ml(at)3(dot)141592654(dot)de> wrote:
> > What is your use-case?
>
> It's geospatial data from OpenStreetMap stored in a schema optimized for
> PostGIS extension (produced by osm2pgsql).
>
> BTW: Having said (to Martijn) that using Postgres is probably more
> efficient, than programming an in-memory database in a decent language:
> OpenStreetMap has a very, very large Node table which is heavily used by
> other tables (like ways) - and becomes rather slow in Postgres.
>

Do you know why it is slow? I'd give high odds that it would be a specific
implementation detail in the code that is suboptimal, or maybe a design
decision of PostGIS, rather than some high level architectural decision of
PostgreSQL.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2013-11-18 18:58:06 Re: Regex files are missing
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2013-11-18 17:31:31 Re: Suggestion: pg_dump self-cleanup if out-of-disk