May Users forcely assign a table / database / cluster storage in RAM
purely ?
or a in-directly-way , like making a RAM-Disk-Device and assign this
device as a postgreSQL cluster?
I think this feature will push a lot High-Performance usage ,
any suggestion ?
jihuang
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
