Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date
Msg-id 20060626164645.GM93655@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  ("Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>)
Responses Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC  ("Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:37:01AM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
> While we all know session data is, at best, ephemeral, people still want
> some sort of persistence, thus, you need a database. For mcache I have a
> couple plugins that have a wide range of opitions, from read/write at
> startup and shut down, to full write through cache to a database.
> 
> In general, my clients don't want this, they want the database to store
> their data. When you try to explain to them that a database may not be the
> right place to store this data, they ask why, sadly they have little hope
> of understanding the nuances and remain unconvinced.

Have you done any benchmarking between a site using mcache and one not?
I'll bet there's a huge difference, which translates into hardware $$.
That's something managers can understand.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Inheritance, CREATE TABLE LIKE, and partitioned tables
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2