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

Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

From: "Bruno Almeida do Lago" <teolupus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "'Mitch Pirtle'" <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
Date: 2005-01-21 00:40:02
Message-ID: 000001c4ff51$c0e985e0$e883f40a@br.gedasgrp (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
I was thinking the same! I'd like to know how other databases such as Oracle
do it.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Mitch Pirtle
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:42 PM
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:33:42 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen
<darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com> wrote:
> Another Option to consider would be pgmemcache.  that way you just build
> farm out of lots of large memory, diskless boxes for keeping the whole
> database in memory in the whole cluster.  More information on it can be
> at:

Which brings up another question: why not just cluster at the hardware
layer? Get an external fiberchannel array, and cluster a bunch of dual
Opterons, all sharing that storage. In that sense you would be getting
one big PostgreSQL 'image' running across all of the servers.

Or is that idea too 90's?  ;-)

-- Mitch

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dan LangilleDate: 2005-01-21 00:55:20
Subject: Re: index scan of whole table, can't see why
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2005-01-21 00:26:20
Subject: Re: column without pg_stats entry?!

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group