Hi Edson As Rob wrote: Having a feature like an in-memory table like SQLite has [1] would make application cahces obsolete and interesting to discuss (but that was'nt exactly what I asked above).
--Stefan [1] http://www.sqlite.org/inmemorydb.html [2] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/non-durability.html 2013/11/17 Edson Richter <edsonrich...@hotmail.com> > Em 17/11/2013 12:15, rob stone escreveu: > > >> On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 12:25 +0100, Stefan Keller wrote: >> >>> How can Postgres be used and configured as an In-Memory Database? >>> >>> >>> Does anybody know of thoughts or presentations about this "NoSQL >>> feature" - beyond e.g. "Perspectives on NoSQL" from Gavin Roy at PGCon >>> 2010)? >>> >>> >>> Given, say 128 GB memory or more, and (read-mostly) data that fit's >>> into this, what are the hints to optimize Postgres (postgresql.conf >>> etc.)? >>> >>> >>> -- Stefan >>> >> Not as being completely "in memory". >> Back in the "good ol'days" of DMS II (written in Algol and ran on >> Burroughs mainframes) and Linc II (also Burroughs) it was possible to >> define certain tables as being memory resident. This was useful for low >> volatile data such as salutations, street types, county or state codes, >> time zones, preferred languages, etc. >> It saved disk I/O twice. Firstly building your drop down lists and >> secondly when the entered data hit the server and was validated. >> It would be good to have a similar feature in PostgreSql. >> If a table was altered by, say inserting a new street type, then the >> data base engine has to refresh the cache. This is the only overhead. >> >> Cheers, >> Robert >> > > For this purpose (building drop down lists, salutations, street types, > county or state codes), I keep a permanent data cache at app server side > (after all, they will be shared among all users - even on a multi tenant > application). This avoids network connection, and keep database server > memory available for database operations (like reporting and transactions). > But I agree there are lots of gaings having a "in memory" option for > tables and so. I believe PostgreSQL already does that automatically (most > used tables are kept in memory cache). > > Edson. > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
