From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
Date: | 2010-09-16 05:35:09 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimoRtba9z5cbFNiP4=pgriyAApFQEd7cgTWSRFr@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/16 Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>:
> On 16/09/10 14:05, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hitoshi Harada<umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/9/16 Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, key-value store, I bet. Yeah, that would be cool.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's it. Like Redis, Tokyo Cabinet, or something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly do those get you that an ordinary index, or at worst an
>>> index-organized table, doesn't get you?
>>>
>>
>> For example, you can imagine that if
>> you have a "sessions" table where you store a record for each
>> currently-logged-in user, an unlogged table would be fine. If the
>> database crashes and comes back up again, everyone has to log in
>> again, but that's a rare event and not a disaster if it happens.
>>
>>
>
> Or perhaps even a "sessions" type table where the rows are overwritten in
> place in some manner, to avoid bloat.
>
My answer is "variety". If an index-organized table was the one best
solution, there would not been so many KVSes these days.
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-16 06:07:09 | Day 01/31 |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-16 05:05:06 | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |