2010/9/16 Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz>: > On 16/09/10 14:05, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hitoshi Harada<umi.tan...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> 2010/9/16 Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, key-value store, I bet. Yeah, that would be cool. >>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> That's it. Like Redis, Tokyo Cabinet, or something. >>>> >>> >>> What exactly do those get you that an ordinary index, or at worst an >>> index-organized table, doesn't get you? >>> >> >> For example, you can imagine that if >> you have a "sessions" table where you store a record for each >> currently-logged-in user, an unlogged table would be fine. If the >> database crashes and comes back up again, everyone has to log in >> again, but that's a rare event and not a disaster if it happens. >> >> > > Or perhaps even a "sessions" type table where the rows are overwritten in > place in some manner, to avoid bloat. > My answer is "variety". If an index-organized table was the one best solution, there would not been so many KVSes these days.
Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
