So much work just to avoid using Redis. If I wanted to use SQL for cache, I'd rather choose the memory engine of MySQL.
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
14 points (93.8% liked)
PostgreSQL
637 readers
1 users here now
The world's most advanced open source relational database
Project
- About (history)
- Docs
- Donate to PostgreSQL
- Wiki
- Planet PostgreSQL
- IRC
- Mailing lists:
- pgsql-announce
- pgsql-hackers (developers)
- pgsql-general
- pgsql-jobs
- User Groups
Events
- SEAPUG Summer BBQ, 6 July in Seattle
- SFBA PostgreSQL Meetup, 12 July
- Chicago PostgreSQL Meetup, 19 July
- PGDay UK 2023, 12 September in London
- PGConf 2023, 3-5 October in New York City
- PGDay Israel 2023, 19 October
- PGConf.EU 2023, 12-15 December in Prague
Podcasts
Related Fediverse communities
- c/SQL on programming.dev
- #sql on Mastodon
- #postgresql on Mastodon
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If I wanted to use SQL for cache, I’d rather choose the memory engine of MySQL.
Why would you onboard an entirely separate service if you're already using PostgreSQL ?
Honestly it feels like a hack with multiple drawbacks. I'd personally rather use something specifically designed for the job.