|From:||Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>|
|Cc:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
> That reminds me of the requirement of having Multi Master Replication in
> place to do Parallel Query Execution. Sync Multi Master Replication
> being better, while Async Multi Master Replication obviously leads to
> inconsistent responses, when queried in parallel. That may be acceptable
> in certain situations.
Oops, during rereading "Clustering For Parallel Query Execution", I've
noticed that you mention Data Partitioning as one possible way to do
Parallel Query Execution. Thus Multi Master Replication obviously is not
a requirement, but just another way to allow for Parallel Query
Execution. Mentioning that as well would probably be good.
IMHO, the advice to use multiple, independent databases to do parallel
query execution sounds a little meager. Of course it's also parallel
query execution, but it's not what most people suspect to find under
that section, I would guess.
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2006-11-21 18:12:52||Re: PostgreSQL Documentation of High Availability and|
|Previous Message||Markus Schiltknecht||2006-11-21 11:57:00||Re: [Sequoia] PostgreSQL Documentation of High Availability and Load|