Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

From: Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Date: 2005-01-20 15:42:27
Message-ID: OFA3C37D8C.6567F898-ON05256F8F.00561CA3@ftw.us.ray.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer.
Still need one honking server.

Rick


Stephen Frost
<sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Sent by: cc: Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
pgsql-performance-owner(at)pos Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
tgresql.org


01/20/2005 10:08 AM

* 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
(See attached file: signature.asc)

Attachment Content-Type Size
signature.asc application/octet-stream 196 bytes

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message amrit 2005-01-20 15:45:05 Which PARAMETER is most important for load query??
Previous Message Steve Wampler 2005-01-20 15:40:04 Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering