You Don't Need a Dedicated Cache Service – PostgreSQL as a Cache (2023)

Re:You Don't Need a Dedicated Cache Service – PostgreSQL as ... by kapperchino on Wednesday March 06, 2024 @03:08PM (#39620719)

Because you can’t scale out just the cache part of Postgres, one machine can only have so much memory

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Need a Dedicated Cache Service – PostgreSQL as ... by 10000truths on Wednesday March 06, 2024 @03:26PM (#39620968)

If you have a second machine, why not just put a Postgres read replica on it? Letting the WAL deal with replica consistency is much simpler than making the client responsible for keeping an external cache in sync, and you get the benefit of keeping everything in Postgres.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You Don't Need a Dedicated Cache Service – PostgreSQL as ... by dpedu on Wednesday March 06, 2024 @03:38PM (#39621101)

Either I pay a performance penalty waiting for my cache entry to be synced to the replica, or I risk reading stale data from the replica, no?

[ Parent | on HN ]