On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 08:15, mlw wrote: > "Mattew T. O'Connor" wrote: > > [snip]
> > >The primary use that you have suggested is for web sites, > > and they certainly won't mind of the cache is 0.3seconds out of date. > > Again, if they don't care about accuracy, then they will use MySQL. PostgreSQL > is a far better system. Making PostgreSQL less accurate, less "correct" takes > away, IMHO, the very reasons to use it. > If you are using a web site and you need real time data within 0.3s, you've implemented on the wrong platform. It's as simple as that. In the web world, there are few applications where a "0.3s" of a window is notable. After all, that "0.3s" of a window can be anywhere within the system, including the web server, network, any front end caches, dns resolutions, etc. I tend to agree with Mettew. Granted, there are some application domains where this can be critical...generally speaking, web serving isn't one of them. That's why all of the solutions I offered were pointedly addressing a web server scenario and not a generalized database cache. I completely agree with you on that. In a generalized situation, the database should be managing and caching the data (which it already does). Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
