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

Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?

From: Kelvin Quee <kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: JiaYi Lee <leejiayi(at)gmail(dot)com>, lim(dot)ck(dot)michael(at)gmail(dot)com, elias(dot)soong(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?
Date: 2009-07-22 03:47:43
Message-ID: 4e9464f90907212047p799db680o650b4a9754547d63@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi Performance Wizards!

I need advice on this.

I have a db which is being constantly updated and queried by a few
computers. We are doing datamining. The machine is running on a
moderately powered machine and processors constantly hit 90%.

At the same time, we need to present these data on a web interface.
The performance for the web interface is now very sluggish as most of
the power is occupied by the mining process.

I have thought of a few ways out of this -

1) Buy a mega powered machine (temporal solution, quick fix)
2) Do a master-slave configuration
3) Separate the DB into 2 - One for pure mining purposes, the other
purely for web serving

For (2), I do not know if it will be very effective since the master
will probably have many changes at any moment. I do not understand how
the changes will be propagated from the master to the slave without
impacting the slave's performance. Anyone with more experience here?

(3) seems ideal but is a very very painful solution!

We can possibly use a message queue system but again I am not familiar
with MQ. Will need to do more research.

If you were me, how would you solve this problem?

Thanks!


Kelvin Quee
+65 9177 3635

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2009-07-22 05:11:15
Subject: Re: Atomic access to large arrays
Previous:From: Victor de Buen (Bayes)Date: 2009-07-21 23:43:35
Subject: Atomic access to large arrays

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