Re: Database cluster?

I actually analyzed it once. I came to the conclusion that to do it right
it would be easier to make an almost entirely new db but use the same
external interfaces as PostgreSQL. To do a kludge of it, one might just
implement a tier that sits between the user and a bunch of standard
PostgreSQL backends.

It'd make a neat companion project, though. Like PG/Enterprise or
PG/Warehouse or something.

Doug

At 04:02 PM 11/30/00 -0000, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>> You're almost describing a Teradata DBM.
>
>I knew someone must have thought of it before. ;-)
>
>[snip]
>
>> The thing that impacted me the most about this architecture was that
>> sorting was practically built in. So all the intermediary computers had
>to
>> do was merge the sorted result sets from its lower level computers.
>Blazing!
>
>They effectively implemented a binary tree in hardware. One hell of an
>indexing mechanism. :-)
>
>> I miss that old beast. But I certainly cannot afford the multimillion
>> dollars required to get one for myself.
>
>I suppose it would depend on how many computers you want to have in this
>cluster. The main reason why clusters are getting popular recently (albeit
>not yet for databases, or so it would seem) is because it is cheaper than
>anything else with similar performance.
>
>The main question remains - are there any plans to implement something
>similar to this with PostgreSQL? I would volunteer to help with some
>coding, if a "group" was formed to work on this "clustering" module.
>
>Regards.
>
>Gordan