| From: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Lars <la(at)unifaun(dot)com>, mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Migrating to Postgresql and new hardware |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 14:48:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4D384B55.2020803@squeakycode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 1/19/2011 6:42 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/19/2011 05:09 PM, Lars wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply!
>>
>>
>>> As others have mentioned, how are you going to be doing your "shards"?
>> Hmm... shards might not have been a good word to describe it. I'll
>> paste what I wrote in another reply:
>> I used sharding as an expression for partitioning data into several
>> databases.
>
> "sharding" or "shards" is pretty much the standard way that setup is
> described. It doesn't come up on the Pg list a lot as most people doing
> web-oriented horizontally scaled apps use MySQL or fashionable non-SQL
> databases, but it's pretty well known in wider circles.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
Or... PG is just so good we've never had to use more than one database
server! :-)
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-20 15:25:39 | Re: Running PostgreSQL as fast as possible no matter the consequences |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-20 14:19:00 | Re: anti-join chosen even when slower than old plan |