Albretch wrote:
> After RTFM and googling for this piece of info, I think PostgreSQL
> has no such a feature.
>
> Why not?
>
> . Isn't RAM cheap enough nowadays? RAM is indeed so cheap that you
> could design diskless combinations of OS + firewall + web servers
> entirely running off RAM. Anything needing persistence you will send
> to the backend DB then
> . Granted, coding a small Data Structure with the exact functionality
> you need will do exactly this "keeping the table's data on the heap".
> But why doing this if this is what DBMS have been designed for in the
> first place? And also, each custom coded DB functionality will have to
> be maintaned.
>
> Is there any way or at least elegant hack to do this?
>
> I don't see a technically convincing explanation to what could be a
> design decision, could you explain to me the rationale behind it, if
> any?
If you access a table more frequently then other and you have enough
RAM your OS will mantain that table on RAM, don't you think ?
BTW if you trust on your UPS I'm sure you are able to create a RAM
disk and place that table in RAM.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
