Don Lavelle <don.lavelle.bulk@gmail.com> writes:
> My database is quite small (only 13 lucky tables, though that may expand a
> little) and will not hold a great amount of data. (There will be at most
> records in the thousands for the single-user or tens of thousands for the
> multi-user.) I will either use Java or C++ for the project. I would run
> PostgreSQL as a child process.
What do you mean by "a child process"? PostgreSQL is run as a server and then
you connect to it (either through TCP or using sockets). Or you were talking
about something you'll do with your code?
> Is PostgreSQL overkill for such a project? My other choices are to go with a
> flat-file format or to use an embedded SQL server. The reason to go with
> PostgreSQL are that I don't have to write as much code, it's known to be
> reliable for what I'm doing, and it's known to be reliable for what I might
> be doing. The reason to not go with PostgreSQL is that it might be too much
> for a modest personal computer; I don't know that the computers running this
> will even have XP. (I'm not a MS Windows user, myself, unless I have to be.
> My development boxes are a 1.1 GHz Athlon with 512 RAM with XP and a
> dual-processor G4 with MacOS 10.4.)
>
> Are there ballpark requirements for what such a database will need to run?
You have the required hardware. I have PostgreSQL running on worse conditions
and performing very well.
--
Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
