Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
От | Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OFA3C37D8C.6567F898-ON05256F8F.00561CA3@ftw.us.ray.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering (Hervé Piedvache <herve@elma.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer. Still need one honking server. Rick Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> Sent by: cc: Hervé Piedvache <herve@elma.fr>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org pgsql-performance-owner@pos Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering tgresql.org 01/20/2005 10:08 AM * Christopher Kings-Lynne (chriskl@familyhealth.com.au) wrote: > PostgreSQL has replication, but not partitioning (which is what you want). It doesn't have multi-server partitioning.. It's got partitioning within a single server (doesn't it? I thought it did, I know it was discussed w/ the guy from Cox Communications and I thought he was using it :). > So, your only option is Oracle or another very expensive commercial > database. Or partition the data at the application layer. Stephen (See attached file: signature.asc)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: