Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwY-Vzo_DjA+m1EzXGXkKmffSt3Db+-D=rgYaJJpkqnhgw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates (Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] huge table occupation after updates
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Saturday, December 10, 2016, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com> wrote:
I have one direct DB client (let's name it MIDAPP) only. This client of the DB is a server for up to 10000 final clients.Any time MIDAPP is going to reply to a client, it must save a "status record with some data" related to that client and only after that, answering /committing the final client.The next time the same final client will ask something, the same status record will be updated again (with a different content).
Why do you want to pay for concurrency control when you don't seem to need it? While PostgreSQL likely can do what you need I suspect there are applications out there that can solve this specific problem better. Even something as simple as a flat file, one per "final client", written atomically and fsynced after each write/rename.
David J,
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: