Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

2010-06-16 Thread jgard...@jonathangardner.net
On Jun 14, 7:14 pm, "jgard...@jonathangardner.net" wrote: > We have a fairly unique need for a local, in-memory cache. This will > store data aggregated from other sources. Generating the data only > takes a few minutes, and it is updated often. There will be some > fairl

[PERFORM] PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

2010-06-16 Thread jgard...@jonathangardner.net
We have a fairly unique need for a local, in-memory cache. This will store data aggregated from other sources. Generating the data only takes a few minutes, and it is updated often. There will be some fairly expensive queries of arbitrary complexity run at a fairly high rate. We're looking for high

Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

2010-06-16 Thread jgard...@jonathangardner.net
On Jun 15, 4:18 pm, j...@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) wrote: > On 6/15/10 10:37 AM, Chris Browne wrote: > > I'd like to see some figures about WAL on RAMfs vs. simply turning off > fsync and full_page_writes.  Per Gavin's tests, PostgreSQL is already > close to TokyoCabinet/MongoDB performance just w

Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

2010-06-15 Thread jgard...@jonathangardner.net
On Jun 15, 8:47 am, Chris Browne wrote: > "jgard...@jonathangardner.net" writes: > > My question is how can I configure the database to run as quickly as > > possible if I don't care about data consistency or durability? That > > is, the data is updated so o