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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
