On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:33:30PM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote: > I think I have to add, that pure speed of a read-mostly database is the > main scenario I have in mind. > Duration, High-availability and Scaling out are perhaps additional or > separate scenarios. > > So, to come back to my question: I think that Postgres could be even faster > by magnitudes, if the assumption of writing to slow secondary storage (like > disks) is removed (or replaced). If your dataset fits in memory then the problem is trivial: any decent programming language provides you with all the necessary tools to deal with data purely in memory. There are also quite a lot of databases that cover this area. PostgreSQL excels in the area where your data is much larger than your memory. This is a much more difficult problem and I think one worth focussing on. Pure in memory databases are just not as interesting. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
