Don Lavelle <don.lavelle.bulk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > My database is quite small (only 13 lucky tables, though that may expand a > little) and will not hold a great amount of data. (There will be at most > records in the thousands for the single-user or tens of thousands for the > multi-user.) I will either use Java or C++ for the project. I would run > PostgreSQL as a child process. What do you mean by "a child process"? PostgreSQL is run as a server and then you connect to it (either through TCP or using sockets). Or you were talking about something you'll do with your code? > Is PostgreSQL overkill for such a project? My other choices are to go with a > flat-file format or to use an embedded SQL server. The reason to go with > PostgreSQL are that I don't have to write as much code, it's known to be > reliable for what I'm doing, and it's known to be reliable for what I might > be doing. The reason to not go with PostgreSQL is that it might be too much > for a modest personal computer; I don't know that the computers running this > will even have XP. (I'm not a MS Windows user, myself, unless I have to be. > My development boxes are a 1.1 GHz Athlon with 512 RAM with XP and a > dual-processor G4 with MacOS 10.4.) > > Are there ballpark requirements for what such a database will need to run? You have the required hardware. I have PostgreSQL running on worse conditions and performing very well. -- Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@xxxxxxxxx>
