--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Kjell Rilbe <kjell.rilbe@...> wrote:

>
> Den 2011-08-12 14:50 skrev Leyne, Sean såhär:
> > Kjell,
> >
> > > Den 2011-08-03 14:25 skrev Kjell Rilbe såhär:
> > > > For performance reasons we're considering a setup where our 50+ Gbyte
> > > > Firebird database would reside on a RAM-disk.
> > >
> > > After the discussion here as well as a discussion between me and my
> > > partner and after getting some info on the cost of a server with 60+
> > Gbyte
> > > RAM, we are now aiming at a solution where only the relevant parts of our
> > > ~60 Gbyte database will be "published" to a separate and much smaller
> > > database that will be structured and indexed for optimal search
> > > performance. This smaller DB will be placed on SSD or RAM disk instead of
> > > the huge one.
> >
> > Save yourself the "grief" of the whole separate database approach and
> > simply go out and get a RAID controller which supports an SSD cache.
> >
> > The controller will do, internally, exactly what you are trying to do
> > via "fancy" processes.
>
> Yes, but the structure of the data in the large database is not optimal
> for searching, so we will probably want to publish it into a
> search-tailored separate database anyway. Among other things, we have
> data that we may not be allowed to publish, but this fact is not stored
> directly into the search table, but about 5+ joins away... It's modeled
> for data collection and data entry with full history and a lot of
> metadata, not for searching.
>
> Kjell
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Kjell Rilbe
> DataDIA AB
> E-post: kjell@...
> Telefon: 08-761 06 55
> Mobil: 0733-44 24 64
>

I have another solution for this
but i wait for it also - becouse it is in beta state
look here http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/index.html this is the same company wich i post you link to Ram disk :)

Karol Bieniaszewski