Message-ID: <4E10B268.9090405@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:18:16 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Infinite Cache
References: <BANLkTi=BWd5G_q2erCZK-Htd=CLU1n9R0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6CEF0279-2FD6-4A55-B256-6DEDD124E799@nasby.net>
In-Reply-To: <6CEF0279-2FD6-4A55-B256-6DEDD124E799@nasby.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/01/2011 06:37 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> BTW, thanks to the compression feature of IC I've heard it can 
> actually be beneficial to run it on the same server.

Sure, its implementation works in a way that helps improve performance 
on the database server.  My point was that I'd be shocked if it were 
even possible to double performance if you use it.  Whereas putting a 
pgmemcache server in front of the database can do much better than that, 
on a system that reads the same things many times per update.  "Infinite 
Cache" is a useful technology and the fact that it work transparently 
the application is a nice benefit of EDB's commercial product.  But it's 
usually the case that if you really want to do the best possible 
implementation of an approach, optimizing very specifically for your 
application is what's needed.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
Comprehensive and Customized PostgreSQL Training Classes:
http://www.2ndquadrant.us/postgresql-training/