> > I don't think this is quite true. The mechanism he proposes has a
> small window in which committed transactions can be lost, and this
> should be addressed by replication or by a small amount of UPC (a few
> seconds).
>
> Except that's the entire point where all those kind of solutions
> *completely* depart ways from Postgres. Postgres is designed to *lose
> absolutely no data after a COMMIT*, potentially including requiring
> that data to be synchronized out to a second server. That is worlds
> apart from "we might lose a few seconds", and there's a lot of stuff
> Postgres has to worry about to accomplish that. Some of that stuff can
> be short-circuited if you don't care (that's what SET
> synchronous_commit = off does), but there's always going to be some
> amount of extra work to support synchronous_commit = local or
> remote_*.
I understand that. What I'm trying to get a handle on is the magnitude of that cost and how it influences other parts
ofthe product, specifically for Postgres. If the overhead for perfect durability were (say) 10%, few people would care
aboutthe cost. But Stonebraker puts the figure at 2500%! His presentation says that a pure relational in-memory store
canbeat a row store with disk fully cached in memory by 10x to 25x. [Ditto column stores beat row stores by 10x for
complexqueries in non-updatable data.]
So my question is not to challenge the Postgres way. It's simply to ask whether there are any known figures that would
directlysupport or refute his claims. Does Postgres really spend 96% of its time in thumb-twiddling once the entire
databaseresides in memory?
> Presumably there's more improvements that could be made to Postgres in
> this area, but if you really don't care about losing seconds worth of
> data and you need absolutely the best performance possible then maybe
> Postgres isn't the right choice for you.
Achieving durability for an in-memory database requires either UPS or active replication or both, which is an
additionalcost that is not needed for every application. My question precedes that one: is there a big performance gain
therefor the taking, or is it smoke and mirrors?
Regards
David M Bennett FACS
Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org