Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases
Date
Msg-id 20070705172044.GJ17424@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases  ("Alexander Todorov" <alexx.todorov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases  ("A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> The question was is there something else that exists in PostgreSQL and
> will do the same job.

Why re-invent the wheel, and make it square?  But also, if you don't
care whether you keep your data, why on earth are you putting it in
an RDBMS?  Is it because all your pre-built tools already speak SQL?
If you're really after performance, I'm not convinced a SQL-speaking
RDBMS (delivered by MySQL or Postgres or anyone else) is what you
actually need.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.
        --George Orwell

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Erik Jones
Date:
Subject: Re: perpetual dump/restore problem
Next
From: Jeff Amiel
Date:
Subject: Way to determine index bloat stats?