I traded a couple emails with a guy using one of my open source projects. To
make a long story short, he is going to the new version of MySQL for his
website because of the new caching feature. He is convinced that it will speed
up his web site, and he is probably right.
On a web site, a few
I previously replied to you vaguely describing a way you could implement
this by using a combination of client side caching and database tables
and triggers to allow you to determine if your cache is still valid.
Someone came right behind me, Tom maybe??, and indicated that the
proper/ideal way
Triggers and asynchronous notification are not substitutes for real hard ACID
complient caching. The way you suggest implies only one access model. Take the
notion of a library, they have both web and application access. These should
both be able to use the cache.
Also, your suggestion does not
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 08:01, mlw wrote:
[snip]
If it is mostly static data, why not just make it a static page?
Because a static page is a maintenance nightmare. One uses a database in a web
site to allow content to be changed and upgraded dynamically and with a minimum
of work.
Oh ya, I
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 08:36, mlw wrote:
Triggers and asynchronous notification are not substitutes for real hard ACID
complient caching. The way you suggest implies only one access model. Take the
notion of a library, they have both web and application access. These should
both be able to use
This is probably a language looking for a purpose before adding it to
the core. Here's what I use it for; probably abusively too! Could use
untrusted perl to spawn system calls, but shell scripts are much nicer
for shell work not to mention transactional updates of structure and
control scripts
I was thinking that it could be implemented as a keyword or comment in a query.
Such as:
select * from table where column = 'foo' cacheable
or
select * from table where column = 'bar' /* cacheable */
Having caching within PostgreSQL will be good for data integrity. Application
caches
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking about something that would be optional. So, what's the cost
of having a little extra optional code in place?
It costs just as much in maintenance effort even if hardly anyone uses
it. Actually, probably it costs *more*, since seldom-used
Some questions for you at the end of this Tom...which I'd been thinking
about...and you touched on...hey, you did tell me to ask! :)
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking about something that would be optional. So, what's the cost
Andre Radke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
testdb=# CREATE TABLE boxarray_test (col1 BOX[2]);
testdb=# INSERT INTO boxarray_test VALUES ('{(3,3),(1,1),(4,4),(2,2)}');
testdb=# SELECT * FROM boxarray_test;
col1
---
{(4,4),(2,2)}
(1 row)
I've finished looking into this, and
10 matches
Mail list logo
