On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Sébastien Lorion <s...@thestrangefactory.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Francisco Olarte <fola...@peoplecall.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Sébastien: >> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Sébastien Lorion >> <s...@thestrangefactory.com> wrote: >> >> > .... Correct me if I am wrong, but will it not also suffer the same >> > limitation as any statement based replication, namely that the "merged" >> > slave will have to sustain the same write load as all shards combined ? >> >> I cannot tell you the exact mimeo behaviour, but if you incremental >> replication using an id/timestamp by >pulling< changes from the >> masters, you will normally batch them and insert all the changes to >> the slaves in a single transaction, which leads to less load as many >> times your limit is in transaction rate, not record rate. (i.e., every >> 5 minutes you query for all the tuples changed, and insert/update them >> all in one go ) ( Also, if tuples are updated many times between >> sweeps the slave will get only one ) >> >> Francisco Olarte. >> > > You are right, requesting changes at fixed time intervals would certainly > help reduce the load. I will have to test and see if a good balance can be > achieved between not having stale data for too long and keeping up with > writes. > > Sébastien > > If you have any questions while evaluating it, feel free to ask or post any issues to github. -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com
