Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support
От | Alex J. Avriette |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040209020110.GC12909@posixnap.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support (Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support
Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: > Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a > small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or > DELETES, master / slave replication might get you somewhere. There is no way on earth we could be doing writes at that rate. I think that's a given. > Otherwise you're going to need to partition the data up into smaller, > easily managed sizes -- that of course requires an ability to > horizontally partition the data. Obviously, this is the route we have taken. > Anyway, if you want a sane answer we need more information about the > data (is it partitionable?), schema type, queries producing the load > (simple or complex), acceptable data delays (does a new insert need to > be immediately visible?), etc. We've considered a lot of this. Like I said, I think a lot of our need for distributing the database can be helped along with native replication. Am I hearing that nobody believes scalability is a concern? I think many of us would like to see features that would allow large scale installations to be more practical. I also think most of us would agree that the current "graft-on" replication methods are sub-ideal. alex -- alex@posixnap.net Alex J. Avriette, Unix Systems Gladiator The Emperor Wears No Clothes. http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: