On 8/21/2004 10:34 PM, Jim Worke wrote:
> Another thing that bothers us is that we can't find any multi-master
> clustering solution in PostgreSQL. We're actually evaluating MySQL's own
> clustering solution, but it's production quality release is still slated for
> MySQL 5.0.
And with all the different table types available, MySQL has successfully
created a lot of confusion. Note that all the latest and greatest
features that became available with InnoDB tables will again be on your
wishlist when using NDB Cluster. InnoDB and NDB Cluster transactions are
not ACID together, only each of them inside of its table handler is. NDB
Cluster tables will not support foreign keys and the last I heard was
that unique constraints are pretty expensive because of their "funky"
implementation as separate tables.
Another little detail is that NDB Cluster is an in-memory table type.
And to get your failover capabilities, the data must be in memory at
least twice. So you need 2x your entire DB size plus overhead like OS
and a little room to breathe in RAM. With a 100GB database, this will
get funny on the network side too because you will want to have better
than gigabit ethernet.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Gaetano Mendola||Date: 2004-08-23 14:19:34|
|Subject: Re: Connection to a PG 8.0 Beta 1 win32 server|
|Previous:||From: Frank van Vugt||Date: 2004-08-23 14:14:22|
|Subject: Why does =ANY(<array>) need an extra cast when used on an array returned by a select?|