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

Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?
Date: 2009-07-22 16:25:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
kelvinq(at)gmail(dot)com (Kelvin Quee) writes:
> I will go look at Slony now.

It's worth looking at, but it is not always to be assumed that
replication will necessarily improve scalability of applications; it's
not a "magic wand" to wave such that "presto, it's all faster!"

Replication is helpful from a performance standpoint if there is a lot
of query load where it is permissible to look at *somewhat* out of
date information.

For instance, replication can be quite helpful for pushing load off
for processing accounting data where you tend to be doing analysis on
data from {yesterday, last week, last month, last year}, and where the
data tends to be inherently temporal (e.g. - you're looking at
transactions with dates on them).

On the other hand, any process that anticipates *writing* to the
master database will be more or less risky to try to shift over to a
possibly-somewhat-behind 'slave' system, as will be anything that
needs to be consistent with the "master state."
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
"Nondeterminism means never having to say you're wrong."  -- Unknown

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2009-07-22 16:30:49
Subject: Re: Master/Slave, DB separation or just spend $$$?
Previous:From: Victor de BuenDate: 2009-07-22 14:30:43
Subject: Re: Atomic access to large arrays

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