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@svana.org> 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