Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Date: 2005-01-20 15:08:47
Message-ID: 20050120150847.GQ10437@ns.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
* Christopher Kings-Lynne (chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-01-20 15:12:42
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Previous:From: Hervé PiedvacheDate: 2005-01-20 15:07:51
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group