Re: Q: regarding backends - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Stephan Fabel
Subject Re: Q: regarding backends
Date
Msg-id 1719259.AXiScAqC78@majestic
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Q: regarding backends  (Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>)
Responses Re: Q: regarding backends
List pgsql-general
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 06:49:01 AM you wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:20:41 -1000 Stephan Fabel <sfabel@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> > We'd be very interested in seeing the effects of integrating LMDB [*] in
> > terms of performance gains. Has this avenue been explored before?
>
> I have to say that I'm VERY happy that there's been little to no focus on
> supporting different backend storage in PostgreSQL.

Fair enough...

> For me, this is a database system, not a reality TV show.  I'd much rather
> have the focus stay on a tightly integrated, reliable system than have a
> bunch of weird choices that can improve my performance by .5% while causing
> unexpected breakage.

Hardly .5%... - see http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/

I do agree, however, that it is definitively better to focus on one thing and
do it right rather than get lost in a bunch of random choices. The reason I
asked was that it is currently being adopted by a lot of other open source
projects, so I was curious to see what the PostgreSQL community's take on it
was.

Cheers,
Stephan



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters)
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters)