Stephan Fabel <sfa...@hawaii.edu> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 06:49:01 AM you wrote:
>> I'd much rather have the focus stay on a tightly integrated, >> reliable system than have a bunch of weird choices that can >> improve my performance by .5% while causing unexpected breakage. > > Hardly .5%... - see http://symas.com/mdb/microbench/ I see that the benchmarks were run on a laptop with storage systems which are not typical of what one would see on a database server, so it is hard to predict how things would shake out on a real server. Those are some intriguing numbers, though. > I do agree, however, that it is definitively better to focus on > one thing and do it right rather than get lost in a bunch of > random choices. The reason I asked was that it is currently being > adopted by a lot of other open source projects, so I was curious > to see what the PostgreSQL community's take on it was. Did you look at the FDW page, and in particular the "black hole" template FDW? If someone familiar with LMDB wanted to fill in the stubs from that template to provide a working lmdbfdw extension, I would bet that there are people who would be interested in running a few of our standard benchmarks against real server hardware to see how it performs. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
