4 ms·
With either an in-memory db or using zstd compressed ramdisks the limits are ridiculous. Who needs durability anyway, right?
by tremon 4y ago
With either an in-memory db or using zstd compressed ramdisks the limits are ridiculous.
Who needs durability anyway, right?
- jaytaylor 4y agoLitestream can ensure a pretty decent level of durability, for a ramdisk anyway. Suitability depends on what the requirements are.
- taspeotis 4y agoThere are workloads where some data loss is acceptable, like analytics. But more seriously if you want the best of both worlds (in-memory speeds and durability) there are NVDIMMs. SQL Server can take advantage of them: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/performance/configuring-storage-spaces-with-a-nvdimm-n-write-back-cache?view=sql-server-ver15 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/pe... I imagine with some effort SQLite could as well.
- zasdffaa 4y agoThe problem is (I've seen it) staff turning off or disabling WAL[1] because it makes things faster, or as an unintended consequence of doing something else. Great if 'some data loss' being possible is understood in advance. Often, it isn't. [1] example: not quite WAL, but disabling full logging, so it was then on simple logging, on MSSQL as part of a log shrink process. On a cient site. Who did 3-hourly log backups.