On Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:51:08 pm Brian Modra wrote:
Maybe the best way to solve this is not to do automatic distribution
of the data, but rather to provide tools for implementing distributed
references and joins.
Here's my vote! I'd *LOVE* it if I could do a simple cross-database join
On 14/05/2010, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Brian Modra wrote:
Hi,
I've been told that PostgreSQL and other similar databases don't work
well on a parallelised operating system because they make good use of
shared memory which does not cross the boundary between nodes in a
cluster.
Hi,
I've been told that PostgreSQL and other similar databases don't work
well on a parallelised operating system because they make good use of
shared memory which does not cross the boundary between nodes in a
cluster.
So I am wondering if any work is being done to make it possible to
have a
Brian Modra wrote:
Hi,
I've been told that PostgreSQL and other similar databases don't work
well on a parallelised operating system because they make good use of
shared memory which does not cross the boundary between nodes in a
cluster.
So I am wondering if any work is being done to make
Hi,
I have a table with 15M rows. Table is around 5GB on disk.
Clustering the table takes 5 minutes.
A seq scan takes 20 seconds.
I guess clustering is done using a seq scan on the index and then fetching the
proper rows in the heap.
If that's the case, fetching random rows on disk is the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Scara Maccaim_li...@yahoo.it wrote:
Hi,
I have a table with 15M rows. Table is around 5GB on disk.
Clustering the table takes 5 minutes.
A seq scan takes 20 seconds.
I guess clustering is done using a seq scan on the index and then fetching
the proper
I've found it easier to select everything into another
table, truncate
the original table, then insert the rows as:
that takes 50 seconds of pure sorting and 8GB of ram to sort; my method doesn't
require more memory than the size of the heap table, and no sorting, since the
index is already
Scara Maccai wrote:
I mean: there's access exclusive lock on the table while clustering,
so I don't see any problem in doing it... this way you could
- avoid sorting (which is what is used in the method create newtable
as select * from oldtable order by mycol, and can be slow with 15M
There was an
attempt to fix it (for example so that it could try to do a
seqscan+sort
instead of indexscan), but it stalled.
Actually I read that, but it's complicated... it involves planning and a lot of
other stuff I don't even know about...
My solution I guess would be easier (but, of
On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
BOOM! Deadlock.
No more likely than with the current cluster command. Acquiring the
lock is
the same risk; but it is held for much less time.
Actually, no (at least in 8.2). CLUSTER grabs an exclusive lock
before it does any work meaning
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Decibel! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
BOOM! Deadlock.
No more likely than with the current cluster command. Acquiring the lock
is
the same risk; but it is held for much less time.
Actually, no (at least in
BOOM! Deadlock.
No more likely than with the current cluster command. Acquiring the lock is
the same risk; but it is held for much less time.
...I think what makes a lot
more sense is to have a form of clustering that puts effort into
placing tuples in the correct location.
Agreed that
On May 28, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
If I'm not totally off-base, here's one way to enable clustering on
systems
that run 24/7:
1 cluster current rows
1.1 note current last committed transaction
1.2 copy all visible rows to new table in cluster order
1.3 build indexes
If I'm not totally off-base, here's one way to enable clustering on systems
that run 24/7:
1 cluster current rows
1.1 note current last committed transaction
1.2 copy all visible rows to new table in cluster order
1.3 build indexes on new table
2 add changes
2.1 note current last
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Later on, though, less new space would have to be allocated because more
and more of the space allocated earlier to hold moved tuples would be
being freed up in useful chunks that could be reused.
I don't see how that works. If the minimum size of the
Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Later on, though, less new space would have to be allocated because more
and more of the space allocated earlier to hold moved tuples would be
being freed up in useful chunks that could be reused.
I don't see how that works. If the
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Begin a transaction and free the first chunk (2 tuples in this case, but
obviously many more in a real case):
---
..473612058
---
Use that freed space to store the first ordered tuples:
---
014736.2.58
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway I think the main practical problem would be with deadlocks
against other transactions trying to update/delete tuples at the same
times you need to move them. Dealing with uncommitted insertions would
be tricky too --- I think you'd need to wait out the inserting
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:12:52PM -0700, fschmidt wrote:
An implementation of clustering without locking would start by comparing the
index to the table from the beginning to find the first mismatch. Rows
before the mismatch are fine, and can be left alone. From here on, go
through the
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:12 AM, fschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An implementation of clustering without locking would start by comparing the
index to the table from the beginning to find the first mismatch. Rows
before the mismatch are fine, and can be left alone. From here on, go
Huh? If I'm understanding you correctly you'll end up with rows in
order, but with a really big hole in the middle of the table. I'm not
sure if that qualifies as clusters.
That's why he said vacuum when done. Anyway, I'm not sure that a big
*contiguous* hole in the middle of the table would
Wouldn't new / updated tuples just get put in the hole, fairly rapidly
un-clustering the table again?
How is that different than putting them in newly-allocated space at the end
of the table?
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
--
Sent via
Scott Ribe wrote:
Huh? If I'm understanding you correctly you'll end up with rows in
order, but with a really big hole in the middle of the table. I'm not
sure if that qualifies as clusters.
That's why he said vacuum when done. Anyway, I'm not sure that a big
*contiguous* hole in the
Scott Ribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Huh? If I'm understanding you correctly you'll end up with rows in
order, but with a really big hole in the middle of the table. I'm not
sure if that qualifies as clusters.
That's why he said vacuum when done.
Huh? A plain vacuum wouldn't fix that; a
Huh? A plain vacuum wouldn't fix that; a vacuum full would close up the
hole, but (a) it'd not preserve the row ordering, and (b) it'd take an
exclusive lock.
OK.
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
Scott Ribe wrote:
Wouldn't new / updated tuples just get put in the hole, fairly rapidly
un-clustering the table again?
How is that different than putting them in newly-allocated space at the end
of the table?
It isn't, I just wasn't thinking straight.
This is probably a stupid idea
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So ... is this crazy? Concurrently clustering the table by moving each
record *twice*, in batches, with pauses to allow old versions to cease
being visible by any live transaction? Or can it actually work?
It seems to me you'd have a pretty horrid bloat
Tom Lane wrote:
Craig Ringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So ... is this crazy? Concurrently clustering the table by moving each
record *twice*, in batches, with pauses to allow old versions to cease
being visible by any live transaction? Or can it actually work?
It seems to me you'd have a
An implementation of clustering without locking would start by comparing the
index to the table from the beginning to find the first mismatch. Rows
before the mismatch are fine, and can be left alone. From here on, go
through the index and rewrite each row in order. This will put the rows at
Hello,
Last night I was working realy hard (10 hours) while reinstalling some
servers in Freiburg and now I have a big problem/question to tables...
My customer had used PostgreSQL 7.4 and we have dumped all tables into
separated dumps because the tables are too big!!!
Formerly, it was the
clustering fail over... ala Oracle Parallel server
How can the server be setup in a cluster for load-balancing and failover
like perhaps OPS?
How does the Postges solution compare to an Oracle? MSSQL? MySQL solution?
Thank!
---(end of
clustering failover... ala Oracle Parallel server
How can the server be setup in a cluster for load-balancing and failover
like perhaps OPS?
How does the Postges solution compare to an Oracle? MSSQL? MySQL solution?
Thank!
---(end of
On 8/4/07, hanasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
clustering failover... ala Oracle Parallel server
Note that OPS is now called RAC (see http://orafaq.com/faq/what_is_rac_ops).
How can the server be setup in a cluster for load-balancing and failover
like perhaps OPS?
As I understand it, RAC
clustering fail over... ala Oracle Parallel server
How can the server be setup in a cluster for load-balancing and failover
like perhaps OPS?
How does the Postges solution compare to an Oracle? MSSQL? MySQL solution?
Thank!
---(end of
clustering fail over... ala Oracle Parallel server
How can the server be setup in a cluster for load-balancing and failover
like perhaps OPS?
How does the Postges solution compare to an Oracle? MSSQL? MySQL solution?
Thank!
---(end of
PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would
write:
Suggest you download my little application and read the
documentation
it would be a good thing
if
your site on replication, was also listed on Postgresql... good
research.
Merry Xmas
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL
]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would
write:
Suggest you download my little application and read
Xmas
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL
Message -
From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] write
Message -
From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing
Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED
24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing
Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would write:
Suggest you download my little application and read the
documentation,
you'll see
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 15:11 +, Andy Dale wrote:
...
You guys please avoid top-posting.
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP,
-
From: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing
Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when
[EMAIL
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Shoaib Mir wrote:
We are trying to achieve High Availability over load balancing, so
basically we always try and have 2 databases in the same state while both
are active,
What problems do you see with Slony + Linux HA combo there? I think a Slony
failover can do the same
On Dec 26, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Marc Evans wrote:
What I have not been able to come up with a good semi-general
purpose solution to is cross-data-center HA.
Why does log shipping not work for you?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Ben wrote:
On Dec 26, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Marc Evans wrote:
What I have not been able to come up with a good semi-general purpose
solution to is cross-data-center HA.
Why does log shipping not work for you?
Well, it may, but is short, I believe that this comes down to
: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would write:
Suggest you download my little application and read the documentation,
you'll see its very different, maybe even interesting.
Maybe they should change that to Postgres DOES
PROTECTED]
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would write:
Suggest you download my little application and read the documentation,
you'll
Hi,
I am currently investigating the preferred method of clustering a postgresql
database on Redhat?
i would really appreciate some suggestions or experiences you guys have had.
note: performance redundancy are both equally desirable and i have plenty of
resources.
we already have
I assume you have read this new documentation for 8.2:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/high-availability.html
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am currently investigating the preferred method of
: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering Load Balancing Replication
I assume you have read this new documentation for 8.2:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/high
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would write:
Suggest you download my little application and read the documentation,
you'll see its very different, maybe even interesting.
Maybe they should change that to Postgres DOES HAVE a free multi-master
replication system :)
I believe there's a TODO item for index-organized tables/clustered
tables. If not, there's certainly been discussion about it on the
-hackers list.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 10:21:27PM -0700, CG wrote:
As I'm waiting for a CLUSTER operation to finish, it occurs to me that in a
lot of cases, the
There are a few options depending on your needs.
PGCluster, Slony and pgpool would be the main ones to look at.
More info on them can be found at http://pgfoundry.org
Searching for replication will find more results than cluster
On 20/9/2006 14:17, Samad, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Hi
Can somebody point me to some articles/how-to's on postgres clustering
and maybe comparisons to MySQL. (Recently saw an article on scaling
MySQL - up to 16 nodes)
Alex
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
As I'm waiting for a CLUSTER operation to finish, it occurs to me that in a lot
of cases, the performance benefits to having one's data stored on disk in index
order can outweigh the overhead involved in inserting data on-disk in index
order Just an idea I thought I'd throw out. :)
Also,
Hi all.
I'm working on a document management application (PAFlow). The
application is Zope based and uses PostgreSQL as its (main) storage
system.
PostgreSQL must contain both profile data for documents and the
documents themselves. Documents are stored as large objects in
PostgreSQL.
Up to
Tom Lane wrote:
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might have been discussed before but I wanted to know if clustering
tables by partial indexes will be availble in a later release of pgSQL?
What
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
CLUSTER says order the table according to the order of the entries in
this index. A partial index doesn't define an ordering for the whole
table, only the rows that have entries in that index. So it doesn't
seem to me that you are
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
CLUSTER says order the table according to the order of the entries in
this index. A partial index doesn't define an ordering for the whole
table, only the rows that have entries in that index. So it doesn't
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 10:12, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
CLUSTER says order the table according to the order of the
entries in this index. A partial index doesn't define an
ordering for the whole table, only the rows that have
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
Not trivial? Seems to me more like impossible to implement for the
general case which would require you to resolve the situation where
someone requests multiple, overlapping, clustered partial indexes
where the ordering
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:18:26AM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
Not trivial? Seems to me more like impossible to implement for the
general case which would require you to resolve the situation where
someone requests multiple, overlapping, clustered partial indexes
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 08:41:06PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Well, currently you can only cluster on a single index per table, and I
really doubt that will change. In any case, if someone's going to work
on clustered indexes I think it would be much more worthwhile to
Quoting Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might have been discussed before but I wanted to know if clustering
tables
by partial indexes will be availble in a later release of pgSQL?
What in the world would it mean to do that?
I'm not sure I
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might have been discussed before but I wanted to know if clustering
tables by partial indexes will be availble in a later release of pgSQL?
What in the world would it
This might have been discussed before but I wanted to know if clustering tables
by partial indexes will be availble in a later release of pgSQL?
For the record, this is the error I get in 8.1:
iprism=# cluster hrs_idx on report;
ERROR: cannot cluster on partial index hrs_idx
hrs_idx is defined
Keith C. Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might have been discussed before but I wanted to know if clustering
tables
by partial indexes will be availble in a later release of pgSQL?
What in the world would it mean to do that?
regards, tom lane
I am looking for some information about clustering and replication
options for postgresql.
I am aware of pgcluster, but have been unable to find anyone willing
to share details about actually using it in a production environment.
That's a little disconcerting. Is pgcluster not really ready
On Wednesday June 22 2005 2:16 am, Gregory Youngblood wrote:
I am looking for some information about clustering and
replication options for postgresql.
Gregory,
FWIW, I've used Slony 1.0.5 for 10-15 db cluster migrations,
usually from 7.3.4 clusters on one box to 7.4.6 clusters on
another
Hi
In MS SQL there is a concept of Clustering database servers. This allows for
load balancing.
Does PostgreSQL have a similar concept?
Thanks
Craig
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
the hammer (sorry to preach...)
hth,
Ross
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Bryden
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:42 PM
To: pgsql
Subject: [GENERAL] Clustering Database Servers
Hi
In MS SQL there is a concept of Clustering
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:41, Craig Bryden wrote:
Hi
In MS SQL there is a concept of Clustering database servers. This allows for
load balancing.
Does PostgreSQL have a similar concept?
This really kinda depends on what you are tring to load balance. I/O,
parallel users, CPU intensive
From the title alone, pgCluster sounded like the perfect choice for
PostgreSQL clustering.
However on their homepage they provide very little information is a
rough english traslation from what it sounds like. Also:
http://pgcluster.projects.postgresql.org/feature.html
What happens when the
I haven't found any information on clustering with PostgreSQL.
One idea we've been tossing around is through PostgreSQL you can
create a function that does something when something else happens.
Pseudo code:
When databse xyz table companyname is updated update the same table
and rows in database
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:59, Patrick Haugen wrote:
I haven't found any information on clustering with PostgreSQL.
One idea we've been tossing around is through PostgreSQL you can
create a function that does something when something else happens.
Pseudo code:
When databse xyz table
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:59:59AM -0700, Patrick Haugen wrote:
Pseudo code:
When databse xyz table companyname is updated update the same table
and rows in database abc;
...
What is a good clustering technique for PostgreSQL?
Slony-I.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:59:59AM -0700, Patrick Haugen wrote:
Pseudo code:
When databse xyz table companyname is updated update the same table
and rows in database abc;
...
What is a good clustering technique for PostgreSQL?
Slony-I.
Slony-I isn't clustering. They would
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 14:54, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:59:59AM -0700, Patrick Haugen wrote:
Pseudo code:
When databse xyz table companyname is updated update the same table
and rows in database abc;
...
What is a good clustering
Slony-I isn't clustering. They would have to look at pgCluster or
something like that.
Sure but it seemed to fit their description of what they
wanted to do.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
---(end of
I've got a database (7.4) whose system tables have been long neglected.
Instead of the 100 or so pages I'd expect for 4000 rows after VACUUM, I've
got 24,000 pages and a mere 1.4 million unused item pointers.
If it were an ordinary table, I'd CLUSTER it, as from experience it would be
vastly
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:59:06PM +0100, Julian Scarfe wrote:
I've got a database (7.4) whose system tables have been long neglected.
Instead of the 100 or so pages I'd expect for 4000 rows after VACUUM, I've
got 24,000 pages and a mere 1.4 million unused item pointers.
If it were an
by all tables).
In general, clustering for each of those table means to reorder on disc
tuples, in order to be sequential stored.
The question is:
Does postgres uses the knowledge of the hierarchy structure
to reorder tuples of each table to be stored almost after
its direct paent-table tuples
, this attribute is inherited by all tables).
In general, clustering for each of those table means to reorder on disc
tuples, in order to be sequential stored.
The question is:
Does postgres uses the knowledge of the hierarchy structure
to reorder tuples of each table to be stored almost after
its
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:29:11AM +0530, Nageshwar Rao wrote:
Hi,
We would like use Postgresql as our database. For high availability is it
possible to cluster DB in Postgresql. Appreciate if you can let me know how
this can be achieved.
Else is there any other way to achieve High
Hi,
We would like use Postgresql as
our database. For high availability is it possible to cluster DB in Postgresql.
Appreciate if you can let me know how this can be achieved.
Else is there any other way to achieve High Availability
in POstgresql as this is mission critical system.
Google slony
Regards,
aaron.glenn
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:29:11 +0530, Nageshwar Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We would like use Postgresql as our database. For high availability is it
possible to cluster DB in Postgresql. Appreciate if you can let me know how
this can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Bjrn Voigt wrote:
has postgresql the functionality for clustering, load balancing
and failover. I have to setup two redundant web-servers with and
want run a dbms cluster on this machines.
My webapps should only see
Hello list,
has postgresql the functionality for clustering, load balancing
and failover. I have to setup two redundant web-servers with and
want run a dbms cluster on this machines.
My webapps should only see one dbms, but there should be two
redundant dbms. I know that mysql 4.1 supports this
Most replication systems add a fair amount of complexity. How reliable are
current replication systems? Are they replication systems for performance
or for reliability+availability?
How much does it cost to make sure that the probability of both master and
failover machines failing is lower or
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lincoln Yeoh
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 10:25 AM
To: Jon Brisbin; Richard Huxton
Cc: pgSQL General
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Clustering, mirroriing, or replication?
Most replication systems add a fair amount of complexity. How
Does anyone know what's the most reliable platform postgresql can run on?
With or without scheduled downtime?
This reminded me... Not long ago I was looking at used sun servers. You
can pick up refurbished sun enterprise systems for between $4,000 and
$10,000 fairly easily. For instance
Jon Brisbin wrote:
We're trying to figure out how we can implement a reasonably simple cluster
of postgres servers on a private network at our store locations. The idea
is to have a group of 2-6 PCs each be able to share data in a replicated
manner. Having a separate database server is not an
: [GENERAL] Clustering, mirroriing, or replication?
Jon Brisbin wrote:
We're trying to figure out how we can implement a reasonably simple
cluster
of postgres servers on a private network at our store locations. The idea
is to have a group of 2-6 PCs each be able to share data in a replicated
We're trying to figure out how we can implement a reasonably simple cluster
of postgres servers on a private network at our store locations. The idea
is to have a group of 2-6 PCs each be able to share data in a replicated
manner. Having a separate database server is not an option due to the
Hello all,
I am interested in know if anyone has set up clustering for performance and fail over using PostgreSQL. We are currently using Oracle for a distribution application and would like to use PostgreSQL with multiple application and database servers.
Regards Stan.Post your free ad now!
Hi, Stan,
We're in the early stages of testing a new Postgres (7.3) cluster. For
background, our database is about 14gb on disk, and we see about a
transaction a second (out of about 120 queries/sec.) Our application
is a large dynamic Apache-based web system, written in Perl. Our main
98 matches
Mail list logo
