Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:05:43 -0500
From: Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: jd@commandprompt.com, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Is There Any Way ....
Message-Id: <20051005100543.4b19d4fe.frank@wiles.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <17434238.1128481614269.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: 
 <17434238.1128481614269.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Then there's the large library of research on caching strategies
> in just about every HW and SW domain, including DB theory,
> that points put that the more context dependent, ie application
> or domain specific awareness, caching strategies are the better
> they are.

  Isn't this also a very strong argument for putting your caching
  into your application and not at the database level? 
 
  As you say the more "application or domain specific" it is the better.
  I don't see how PostgreSQL is going to magically determine what
  is perfect for everyone's differing needs and implement it for you. 

  Even rudimentary controls such "always keep this
  table/index/whatever in RAM" aren't as fine grained or specific
  enough to get full benefit. 

  My suggestion is to use something like memcached to store your
  data in, based on the particular needs of your application.  This
  puts all of the control in the hands of the programmer where, in
  my opinion, it belongs. 

  Just to clarify, I'm not entirely against the idea, but I certainly
  think there are other areas of PostgreSQL we should be focusing our
  efforts. 

 ---------------------------------
   Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>
   http://www.wiles.org
 ---------------------------------