Albretch wrote:
>Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<40C365E0.6090905@bigfoot.com>...
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>
> RAMdisks still need a hard disk drive to operate. I am talking here
>about entirely diskless configurations.
>
>
I asked this question not long after 7.4 debuted. In general the basic
answer I got was:
1) Especially with 7.5 and the ARC, small tables which can be stored
entirely in RAM and are frequently used will end up being fully cached
there anyway. Presumably, complex updates would still cause I/O
bottlenecks, but read performance should not be any different than for a
RAM-based table.
2) Given the upcoming release of ARC, there is no real reason to
consider having a table reside only in memory (doing so may impact the
performance of other tables in the database as well).
3) HEAP tables are not planned. PostgreSQL is focused on data
integrity and reliability, and this is a can of worms regarding these
topics which is best left untouched.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
