From: | Richard_D_Levine(at)raytheon(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Date: | 2005-01-20 15:42:27 |
Message-ID: | OFA3C37D8C.6567F898-ON05256F8F.00561CA3@ftw.us.ray.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I think maybe a SAN in conjunction with tablespaces might be the answer.
Still need one honking server.
Rick
Stephen Frost
<sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Sent by: cc: Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
pgsql-performance-owner(at)pos Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering
tgresql.org
01/20/2005 10:08 AM
* Christopher Kings-Lynne (chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au) wrote:
> PostgreSQL has replication, but not partitioning (which is what you
want).
It doesn't have multi-server partitioning.. It's got partitioning
within a single server (doesn't it? I thought it did, I know it was
discussed w/ the guy from Cox Communications and I thought he was using
it :).
> So, your only option is Oracle or another very expensive commercial
> database.
Or partition the data at the application layer.
Stephen
(See attached file: signature.asc)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
signature.asc | application/octet-stream | 196 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | amrit | 2005-01-20 15:45:05 | Which PARAMETER is most important for load query?? |
Previous Message | Steve Wampler | 2005-01-20 15:40:04 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |