Re: PostgreSQL Timeline
| От | Mason S |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+rR5x0ojS3hKS=z03wvoQuQGoOoazXiYHd1cHdObJDZv5AauQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:Bookmarking this one :)
> Postgres-XC probably did more than anything else to kill a lot of the
> clustering projects. Why use GridSQL when you can use Postgres-XC?
Because they are intended for different workloads. GridSQL handles ad hoc analytical queries much better.
Try running DBT-1 (TPC-H) against GridSQL and Postgres-XC. You will get nice scalability with GridSQL, but may be waiting for hours with Postgres-XC... it sometimes ships everything to one single node for joining.
Postgres-XC does fine for OLTP workloads and analytical queries that do not involve inter-node joins. GridSQL performs poorly for OLTP, but can handle inter-node joins in parallel for analytical queries.
Use the right solution depending on your requirements.
That said, long term Postgres-XC could replace GridSQL if it improves in this area. Postgres-XC could also replace pgpool-II today in some cases, possibly more if we allow reads from data node slaves.
Regards,
Mason
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: