Hi I've loved reading all of your thoughts and comments. Yet, I'm left with the question: Can we can brainstorm a caching solution that is workable... I've seen some posts talking about some of the challenges. 1.) Only good for static data As it was proposed that is largely true. This
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 16:51 -0700, Anon Mous wrote:
Hi
I've loved reading all of your thoughts and comments.
Yet, I'm left with the question:
Can we can brainstorm a caching solution that is workable...
I think you're making this a little complicated.
A lot of these problems can
Harvell F wrote:
Getting back to the original posting, as I remember it, the question
was about seldom changed information. In that case, and assuming a
repetitive query as above, a simple query results cache that is keyed on
the passed SQL statement string and that simply returns the
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Jeremy Drake wrote:
2) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I updated the memcache record
to the new value. If another process comes along in parallel before
I commit, that is still looking at an older view, cross-referencing
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:59:05PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
Registering each cache entry by the tables included in the query and
invalidating the cache during on a committed update or insert
transaction to any of the tables would, transparently, solve the
consistency problem.
That was
Hi, Shane,
Shane Ambler wrote:
CREATE TABLESPACE myramcache LOCATION MEMORY(2GB);
It's already possible to do this, just create the TABLESPACE in a
ramdisk / tmpfs or whatever is available for your OS.
HTH,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical TrackingTracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. |
On 10/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another process comes along in parallel
On 16 Oct 2006, at 4:29, Shane Ambler wrote:
Harvell F wrote:
Getting back to the original posting, as I remember it, the
question was about seldom changed information. In that case, and
assuming a repetitive query as above, a simple query results cache
that is keyed on the passed
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 13:59 +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
It's already possible to do this, just create the TABLESPACE in a
ramdisk / tmpfs or whatever is available for your OS.
This is not an ideal solution: if the machine reboots, the content of
the tablespace will disappear, requiring manual
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 13:59 +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
It's already possible to do this, just create the TABLESPACE in a
ramdisk / tmpfs or whatever is available for your OS.
This is not an ideal solution: if the machine reboots,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Jeremy Drake wrote:
2) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I updated the memcache record
to the new value. If another process comes along in parallel before
I commit, that is still
Hi
I may have a workable idea on a way to add caching to Postgres without
disturbing the MVCC functionality.
Caching, as I've been reading can provide an amazing and sometimes
almost unbelievable performance boost to a database based application,
especially for data that is rarely modified.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:41:25AM -0700, Anon Mous wrote:
However, the problem is surmountable and has been figured out by Oracle,
although I don't know how they did it:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/joc/index.html
I'm pretty sure this is application-side caching. The
On 10/15/06, Anon Mous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to combine a special memcache implementation of
memcache with a Postgresql interface wrapper?
have you seen
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
merlin
---(end of
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:31:36PM +0530, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/15/06, Anon Mous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to combine a special memcache implementation of
memcache with a Postgresql interface wrapper?
have you seen
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another process comes along in parallel before I commit, notices
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache
record.
If another process comes along in parallel before I
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/15/06, Anon Mous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to combine a special memcache implementation of
memcache with a Postgresql interface wrapper?
have you seen
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/pgmemcache/
merlin
Now you got me thinkin ;-P
Just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another process comes along in parallel before I commit, notices
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:43PM +0100, Lexington Luthor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:08:39AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
Just throwing some ideas around -
What if we could do something like
CREATE TABLESPACE myramcache LOCATION MEMORY(2GB);
CREATE TABLE mycache (
id as integer, data as varchar(50))
USING TABLESPACE myramcache;
INSERT INTO mycache
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:43PM +0100, Lexington Luthor wrote:
With a bit of careful planning (and a few SELECT FOR UPDATE queries to
prevent deadlock), having perfect consistency and correct caching is
possible.
I didn't respond directly to this claim of yours.
SELECT FOR UPDATE is only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:08:39AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
You could setup a table in memory to contain known popular data, you
could also use this to create a temporary table in memory to speed up
multiple intermediate calculations without touching disks.
I'm
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of this avoids the cost of query planning, or query execution.
No but you can avoid costly disk access and still have the postgres
level of integrity and integration that memcached doesn't offer.
If you're just trying to
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 05:14:59AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:08:39AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
You could setup a table in memory to contain known popular data, you
could also use this to create a temporary table in memory to speed up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a thought experiment, I'm not seeing the benefit. I think if you
could prove a benefit, then any proof you provided could be used to
improve the already existing caching layers, and would apply equally
to read-only or read-write pages. For example, why not be able to
Mark,
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another process comes along in parallel before I commit, notices
that the memcache
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Using memcache, I've had problems with consistency brought right to
the front. Both of these have failed me:
1) When updating a PostgreSQL record, I invalidate the memcache record.
If another process comes along in
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:00:20AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a thought experiment, I'm not seeing the benefit. I think if you
could prove a benefit, then any proof you provided could be used to
improve the already existing caching layers, and would apply equally
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:31:36PM +0530, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/15/06, Anon Mous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to combine a special memcache implementation of
memcache with a Postgresql interface wrapper?
have you seen
On 15 Oct 2006, at 19:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:00:20AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a thought experiment, I'm not seeing the benefit. I think if you
could prove a benefit, then any proof you provided could be used to
improve the
31 matches
Mail list logo
