| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alex Drobychev <adrobj(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to keep a table in memory? |
| Date: | 2007-11-13 02:55:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4739120D.10404@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> I give this a +/- 1. Yes extremely heavy websites can do this *but*
>> they require extremely expensive hardware to do so.
>>
>>
>
> I expect extremely heavy websites to require extremely expensive
> equipment regardless of the software they use. Cost was not the issue
> raised by the OP.
Cost is always an issue, even if implicit. If the person is so hung up
on the idea of pushing things into ram there is a pretty good
possibility they have priced out the 50 and 100 spindle devices needed
to get the same type of performance.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-13 03:12:46 | Re: pgsql: Adjust script to be consistent (thanks Tom for the fix). |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-13 02:53:01 | Re: How to keep a table in memory? |