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

Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL

From: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
To: "Dan Langille" <dan(at)langille(dot)org>
Cc: Jonathan Gardner <jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net>,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL
Date: 2004-05-24 18:32:26
Message-ID: B46E4954-ADB0-11D8-B225-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On May 21, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Dan Langille wrote:

> On 21 May 2004 at 11:10, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> But local backups -- that's just weird. I've seen backups being made
>> locally, but then moved off the server on to some other data storage
>> device (hard disk, tape drive, CD ROM) on another server.
>
> Yes, that is what I'm talking about.
>

Someone could likely and easily write a script that is fed input from 
pg_dump and is smart enough to "chunk" things out.  (ie, hit 30gigs, 
write a tape, rinse, repeat)

One area though is fast recovery - Reloading a multi-GB db from a 
pg_dump is painful, especially if you have foreign keys.  Lots of 
sort_mem helps.

My plan for our informix->pg migration is to take advantage of the 
LVM's snapshot feature.  Make a snapshot, backup the raw data.   This 
way the time to recovery is simply how long it takes to load the backed 
up data onto the server. No waiting for indexes & FK's.  It will use 
more space on the backup media.  But that is the price you need to pay. 
To PG it looks like a power failure or some other failure.

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-05-24 19:50:13
Subject: Finally covered.
Previous:From: Robert BernierDate: 2004-05-24 18:05:40
Subject: Re: have you seen this?

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