Re: multimaster
От | Tino Wildenhain |
---|---|
Тема | Re: multimaster |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4663F5D9.40809@wildenhain.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: multimaster (was: Slightly OT.) ("Alexander Staubo" <alex@purefiction.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: multimaster
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Alexander Staubo schrieb: > On 6/1/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: >> These are all different solutions to different problems, so it's not >> surprising that they look different. This was the reason I asked, >> "What is the problem you are trying to solve?" > > You mean aside from the obvious one, scalability? > > The databases is becoming a bottleneck for a lot of so-called "Web > 2.0" apps which use a shared-nothing architecture (such as Rails, > Django or PHP) in conjunction with a database. Lots of ad-hoc database > queries that come not just from web hits but also from somewhat > awkwardly fitting an object model onto a relational database. ... > the single server, but I would hope that there would, at some point, > appear a solution that could enable a database to scale horizontally > with minimal impact on the application. In light of this need, I think > we could be more productive by rephrasing the question "how/when we > can implement multimaster replication?" as "how/when can we implement > horizontal scaling?". > > As it stands today, horizontally partitioning a database into multiple > separate "shards" is incredibly invasive on the application > architecture, and typically relies on brittle and non-obvious hacks > such as configuring sequence generators with staggered starting > numbers, omitting referential integrity constraints, sacrificing > transactional semantics, and moving query aggregation into the app > level. On top of this, dumb caches such as Memcached are typically Did you have a look at BizgresMPP? Especially for your shared-nothing approach it seems to be a better solution then just replicating everything. Regards Tino
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: