Re: MySql Distributed database version
Look forward in documentation at http://dev.mysql.com/doc/ for Replication and MySQL Cluster sections. Hopefully one or both will be answer for you. -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/ __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ /Egor Egorov / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.net ___/ www.mysql.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
On June 28, 2003 05:33 am, Aodhan Cullen wrote: 6/27/03 6:37:49 PM, Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. I'm unclear why you can't use replication for this. There must be an assumption about what you're doing that we do not share. If you read from the slave and write to the master, why does this not work? A slave would simply not be able to keep up, replication works really well if you have a lot of reads, and a small number of updates. This is reverse ways, and needs a different approach. Actually, I've found MySQL replication to be extremely fast. Our database is also atypical having over 70% writes to 30% or less reads. However, we have yet to have a slave (of 2 or 3) not be able to keep up. In fact, I can bring a slave that has been pasued for a few days (as a snapshot) up to speed again within an hour or two. Here's some stats on our setup: - Queries per second avg: 117.236 - Generating over a 1GB of binlog entries per day. - Running with ~120 GB of live data now (used to be 200+ but we have an archival scheme now) Not sure how this compares to your situation. -- Guy Davis http://www.guydavis.caCalgary, Alberta, Canada -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
6/27/03 6:37:49 PM, Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. I'm unclear why you can't use replication for this. There must be an assumption about what you're doing that we do not share. If you read from the slave and write to the master, why does this not work? A slave would simply not be able to keep up, replication works really well if you have a lot of reads, and a small number of updates. This is reverse ways, and needs a different approach. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
I don't have direct answers to your questions but you should consider adding an integer 'userid' to member table and using it as a foreign key in member_log table instead of username. It will make selects and joins faster, data and index sizes smaller. Also, I don't know what you mean by 'medint' but if it is a mediumint, you will be in trouble since its range is [-8388608..8388607]. You should use at least an unsigned int and may be an unsigned bigint if you suspect that you will have more than 4 billion rows. Hope this helps Joseph Bueno Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm ? what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
Sorry to reply to myself but after reading your post again, I think you can use replication to maintain member table in sync: it is possible to restrict replication to a some tables within a database: check 'replicate-do-table' option. Hope this helps Joseph Bueno Joseph Bueno wrote: I don't have direct answers to your questions but you should consider adding an integer 'userid' to member table and using it as a foreign key in member_log table instead of username. It will make selects and joins faster, data and index sizes smaller. Also, I don't know what you mean by 'medint' but if it is a mediumint, you will be in trouble since its range is [-8388608..8388607]. You should use at least an unsigned int and may be an unsigned bigint if you suspect that you will have more than 4 billion rows. Hope this helps Joseph Bueno Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm ? what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
I think it's always a bad idea to create complex setups like you are contemplating. I would try everything else first. For instance, I don't see any reason to use varchar, that creates variable length records which you want to avoid if you can. Especially with the number of records you are compiling. You didn't mention what table type you are using. I'm pretty sure you would want to use InnoDB if you are going to have lots of updates going on. I would also try a few other general system changes before playing with you structure. Try finding out where you bottleneck is (disk, memory, cpu). It may be that you just need to load up the machine with RAM to get some nice performance. On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 03:33 PM, Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
adding an integer 'userid' to member table and using it as a foreign key in member_log table instead of username. You're right. The main reason i'm doing this, is due to legacy reasons. Also, I don't know what you mean by 'medint' but if it is a mediumint, you will be in trouble since its range is [-8388608..8388607]. The primary key on that table is made up of the username and logid, sorry I should have made that clearer. And each user will only have a maximum of about a million rows. It isn't an auto incrementing column. database: check 'replicate-do-table' option. Thx, I never saw that option before. I'm really going to take another look at the whole structure before I decide what to do. 6/27/03 10:07:16 AM, Joseph Bueno wrote: Sorry to reply to myself but after reading your post again, I think you can use replication to maintain member table in sync: it is possible to restrict replication to a some tables within a database: check 'replicate-do-table' option. Hope this helps Joseph Bueno Joseph Bueno wrote: I don't have direct answers to your questions but you should consider adding an integer 'userid' to member table and using it as a foreign key in member_log table instead of username. It will make selects and joins faster, data and index sizes smaller. Also, I don't know what you mean by 'medint' but if it is a mediumint, you will be in trouble since its range is [-8388608..8388607]. You should use at least an unsigned int and may be an unsigned bigint if you suspect that you will have more than 4 billion rows. Hope this helps Joseph Bueno Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm ? what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
I think it's always a bad idea to create complex setups like you are contemplating. I'd agree. They are very hard to maintain if you need to change things in the future. see any reason to use varchar, that creates variable length records which you want to avoid if you can. Especially with the number of records you are compiling. Duly noted, i've simplified the database a lot, but i will need variable length records for the finished solution. The database would just be too huge, too soon otherwise. You didn't mention what table type you are using. I'm pretty sure you would want to use InnoDB if you are going to have lots of updates going on. I have my current system using MyISAM Dynamic table types. It's all in just one database at the moment. It's running incredibly efficiently and fast with the current database size of 500mb. I've slammed it with Apache Bench and it can handle 60,000,000 updates and 20,000,000 selects a day before it starts to slow down. This is more than good enough, if I could just reproduce this across multiple servers as the service grows. I would also try a few other general system changes before playing with you structure. Try finding out where you bottleneck is (disk, memory, cpu). It may be that you just need to load up the machine with RAM to get some nice performance. Oh, the bottleneck is clear, it's the maximum table size of 4 gigabytes running on unix. I have to work around this somehow. 6/27/03 1:31:43 PM, Brent Baisley wrote: I think it's always a bad idea to create complex setups like you are contemplating. I would try everything else first. For instance, I don't see any reason to use varchar, that creates variable length records which you want to avoid if you can. Especially with the number of records you are compiling. You didn't mention what table type you are using. I'm pretty sure you would want to use InnoDB if you are going to have lots of updates going on. I would also try a few other general system changes before playing with you structure. Try finding out where you bottleneck is (disk, memory, cpu). It may be that you just need to load up the machine with RAM to get some nice performance. On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 03:33 PM, Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brent Baisley Systems Architect Landover Associates, Inc. Search Advisory Services for Advanced Technology Environments p: 212.759.6400/800.759.0577 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: distributed database architecture for a large database
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:33:15PM +0100, Aodhan Cullen wrote: I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. I'm unclear why you can't use replication for this. There must be an assumption about what you're doing that we do not share. If you read from the slave and write to the master, why does this not work? Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 4.0.13: up 24 days, processed 772,776,857 queries (365/sec. avg) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
distributed database architecture for a large database
I've got an interesting problem for you all. I'd love to hear what you think. I've simplified the database design of my web application to its root problem, so it'll be very easy to see my difficulty, and if you're feeling generous possibly offer a solution. I have two tables. member table (circa 1,000,000 rows - 100 meg - easily fit in a single table) username varchar(30) pk password varchar(30) settings varchar(30) member_log table (circa 3,000,000,000 rows - a few 100 gigs - a few 100 very simple updates and selects a second, with some quite long selects every minute or so - when the update is being done it needs to select the settings for the user from the member table before it does the update to the member_log table) logid medint pk fk_username varchar(30) fk description varchar(200) My read/update ratio would be something along the lines of 1:3, 3 updates for every read. So it is highly unusual, and more or less rules replication out of the picture. Now ehm what's the most efficient way of doing this? What I would like to do is: Is have a copy of the member table on every server, then break up the member_log based on the username, and spread it across multiple servers. database server a full member table 1/4 member_log table database server b full member table 1/4 member_log table database server c full member table 1/4 member_log table database server d full member table 1/4 member_log table In the future, if the servers start to slow down then I'll just add database server e full member table member_log table Well that's what I'd like to do, but I don't know how to do this. My main problem is keeping the full member table in sync. I can't use replication because my read/update ratio just isn't right for it. And I only want to keep one table in sync, not the whole database. So i don't know what to do. How do I do this, and do this efficently? Any ideas anyone? regards, Aodhan. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Hi Bruce, - Original Message - From: Bruce Feist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 7:03 AM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source Gelu Gogancea wrote: You make confusion between terms, CONCEPTS and TECHNOLOGIES.Is not yet invented the tools which should THINK instead of our BRAIN when must design a system...any kind of. You are mistaken if you think that I am confused about this. ...maybe...but from what you describe in your messages that is understandable. There are RDBMS's out there that support the features that I described. Yes, of course. An example is CA-OpenIngres. They are good for building distributed databases because they allow the implementer to work at a higher and more appropriate level, concentrating on the distribution appropriate instead of the mechanism for implementing distribution, and because they let the application developer ignore the fact that the database happens to be distributed. Ah...:)...so, now o lot of things began to be jointlyi agree. MySQL don't have implemented such a *powerful tool*(ad-literam copy words, from Ingres website). I made no claim that these other tools think or design; they simply You understand me wrong...it's was like example to be obvious the difference between, concepts and technologies(or tools, if i can said in this way) have extra functionality which implements distribution ...i guess that you wish to said : functionality which are permissive for implementing the distribution. Functionality, which must be able to manage two/more tables on the heterogeneous network environment.With this capabilites it's more easy to implement the distribution.Quite true. -- which is what the original poster was asking about. A human being still must figure out what the most effective distribution strategy is. Yes.It seems that we begin to talk about the same things.And now become the correct answer: MYSQL CAN BE USED IN THE DISTRIBUTED ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS. MySQL is a fine RDBMS; it simply does not implement distribution in its engine. By claiming that it does, you do a disservice to other RDBMSs which *do*, and to people looking for such a solution. This is not was my intention.The result of this kind of discussions, always should go to some things which must be more clearly.Every project leader,manager...whatever...must be able to make out the correct decision, depend on his needs pertain to his knowledge,experince. Bruce Feist Regards, Gelu - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Hi, You make confusion between terms, CONCEPTS and TECHNOLOGIES.Is not yet invented the tools which should THINK instead of our BRAIN when must design a system...any kind of.I hope you feel the difference.For example,a new concept of databases is : the neural database system.What you will do now?To wait until some *automation* will be implemented ? Anyhow this discussion risk to be already off topic for MySQL mailing list. Regards, Gelu _ G.NET SOFTWARE COMPANY Permanent e-mail address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bruce Feist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:26 AM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source Gelu Gogancea wrote: It's quite right, some SQL DataBase engines(like Oracle,DB2,msSQL) have implemented facilities for this. Distributed database can be achieved,like example, using DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS(let's say CORBA).In my understanding that means that MySQL already can be used like distributed database. Can be used like is not the same as is. Similarly, by writing software in C, you can achieve SQL and use OS files like a relational database -- that doesn't mean that flat files *are* a relational database. Finally,What i wish to say is that distributed databases depend on us to be achieved and not by the RDBMS. Yes, it can be done manually... but there are many advantages to having Is not invented yet the tools/technologies which can design the distributed capabilities built into the RDBMS itself. I've used such systems (Computer Associates' OpenIngres product), and when distributed capabilities are needed it's far superior to use a product designed for it. Some examples of the improvements are: 1) Distributed optimizer automatically takes advantage of changes to distribution structure 2) Applications can be written which are independant of distribution structure 3) Complexity of applications is reduced, resulting in lower development costs and fewer bugs 4) Transaction management spanning databases on multiple computers Paul have right and i read very carefully him message:He said (very explicit and without any doubt)that MySQL can not manage multiple tables which are hosted on different servers with one single query.For me this is not a reason to not use MySQL for distributed database system. It's one factor, though. If we relax the definition of a distributed database system to be a client-server RDBMS which can be used to build an application which can combine information from queries to multiple databases on multiple computers, as it seems you wish to do, then yes, MySQL qualifies, and has its usual advantages of low cost, open source, and speed. Depending on the project's needs, these may or may not be enough to counterbalance built-in distribution capabilities of true distributed RDBMSs. If i remember well, on the MySQL website is a link to a german company which has develop a modules which treat multiple MySQL database(hosted on different machine of course) to a logical one. If so, then using it in conjunction with MySQL would indeed create a distributed database management system. Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Gelu Gogancea wrote: You make confusion between terms, CONCEPTS and TECHNOLOGIES.Is not yet invented the tools which should THINK instead of our BRAIN when must design a system...any kind of. You are mistaken if you think that I am confused about this. There are RDBMS's out there that support the features that I described. An example is CA-OpenIngres. They are good for building distributed databases because they allow the implementer to work at a higher and more appropriate level, concentrating on the distribution appropriate instead of the mechanism for implementing distribution, and because they let the application developer ignore the fact that the database happens to be distributed. I made no claim that these other tools think or design; they simply have extra functionality which implements distribution -- which is what the original poster was asking about. A human being still must figure out what the most effective distribution strategy is. MySQL is a fine RDBMS; it simply does not implement distribution in its engine. By claiming that it does, you do a disservice to other RDBMSs which *do*, and to people looking for such a solution. Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist - Original Message - From: james [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:44 PM I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
No, it is not distributed. Bruce Feist wrote: Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is opensource
At 9:55 -0500 3/14/03, Bruce Feist wrote: Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist No. A given connection is a connection to a specific server. You cannot access tables managed by different servers within a single query. - Original Message - From: james [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:44 PM I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
My experience may be limited but I don't know of any database that will allow a single query to access mutiple database servers In fact, only a few seem to be able to even access mutiple databases on the same server Frankly, I am still looking for a db that provides n way replication (this may solve some of your wishes since a local copy could be maintain on your local server) Paul DuBois ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 9:55 -0500 3/14/03, Bruce Feist wrote: Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist No. A given connection is a connection to a specific server. You cannot access tables managed by different servers within a single query. - Original Message - From: james [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:44 PM I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -- Brian Johnson This is where my witty signature line would be if I bothered to edit this line :) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Hi, IMHO: The distributed database is a concept which is can not be assign to the SQL engine standards(AFAIK).Stored procedures,triggers are described in the SQL 92 or SQL 99 standards. It's quite right, some SQL DataBase engines(like Oracle,DB2,msSQL) have implemented facilities for this. Distributed database can be achieved,like example, using DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS(let's say CORBA).In my understanding that means that MySQL already can be used like distributed database. Finally,What i wish to say is that distributed databases depend on us to be achieved and not by the RDBMS. Paul have right and i read very carefully him message:He said (very explicit and without any doubt)that MySQL can not manage multiple tables which are hosted on different servers with one single query.For me this is not a reason to not use MySQL for distributed database system. If i remember well, on the MySQL website is a link to a german company which has develop a modules which treat multiple MySQL database(hosted on different machine of course) to a logical one. Best Regards, Gelu P.S.This is my opinion...if you consider that i'm wrong. __ G.NET SOFTWARE COMPANY Permanent e-mail address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: gerald_clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruce Feist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source No, it is not distributed. Bruce Feist wrote: Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Hi, - Original Message - From: Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:14 PM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source My experience may be limited but I don't know of any database that will allow a single query to access mutiple database servers Yes, it is.But when you must save some money, you are pushed to find solutions with what it is on the market and which is optimal like price/performance. Some friends of mine was hasty to use like database support for their application,Oracle9i...and was very disappointed. Regards, Gelu In fact, only a few seem to be able to even access mutiple databases on the same server Frankly, I am still looking for a db that provides n way replication (this may solve some of your wishes since a local copy could be maintain on your local server) Paul DuBois ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 9:55 -0500 3/14/03, Bruce Feist wrote: Gelu Gogancea wrote: To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Is MySQL really distributed, or just client-server? I've seen no indication of distributed capabilities; I'm new to MySQL, so maybe I just haven't read enough. But a distributed DBMS should be able to execute a single query which transparently accesses multiple database installations on multiple computers, possibly on multiple platforms. For instance, SELECT * from a, b ON a.id = b.id; where table 'a' is in a database on a Windows/2000 computer and table 'b' is on a Linux machine. The DBMS should keep track of which table is in which database on which computer, and its optimizer should be capable of figuring out an efficient way of resolving such queries. Can MySQL do that? Bruce Feist No. A given connection is a connection to a specific server. You cannot access tables managed by different servers within a single query. - Original Message - From: james [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:44 PM I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -- Brian Johnson This is where my witty signature line would be if I bothered to edit this line :) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Gelu Gogancea wrote: It's quite right, some SQL DataBase engines(like Oracle,DB2,msSQL) have implemented facilities for this. Distributed database can be achieved,like example, using DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS(let's say CORBA).In my understanding that means that MySQL already can be used like distributed database. Can be used like is not the same as is. Similarly, by writing software in C, you can achieve SQL and use OS files like a relational database -- that doesn't mean that flat files *are* a relational database. Finally,What i wish to say is that distributed databases depend on us to be achieved and not by the RDBMS. Yes, it can be done manually... but there are many advantages to having the distributed capabilities built into the RDBMS itself. I've used such systems (Computer Associates' OpenIngres product), and when distributed capabilities are needed it's far superior to use a product designed for it. Some examples of the improvements are: 1) Distributed optimizer automatically takes advantage of changes to distribution structure 2) Applications can be written which are independant of distribution structure 3) Complexity of applications is reduced, resulting in lower development costs and fewer bugs 4) Transaction management spanning databases on multiple computers Paul have right and i read very carefully him message:He said (very explicit and without any doubt)that MySQL can not manage multiple tables which are hosted on different servers with one single query.For me this is not a reason to not use MySQL for distributed database system. It's one factor, though. If we relax the definition of a distributed database system to be a client-server RDBMS which can be used to build an application which can combine information from queries to multiple databases on multiple computers, as it seems you wish to do, then yes, MySQL qualifies, and has its usual advantages of low cost, open source, and speed. Depending on the project's needs, these may or may not be enough to counterbalance built-in distribution capabilities of true distributed RDBMSs. If i remember well, on the MySQL website is a link to a german company which has develop a modules which treat multiple MySQL database(hosted on different machine of course) to a logical one. If so, then using it in conjunction with MySQL would indeed create a distributed database management system. Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
Sorry, here's the link: http://www.emicnetworks.com/products/products_eac_mysql.html And the link to the MySQL newsletter issue: http://www.mysql.com/newsletter/2003-02/a000125.html Brian McCain - Original Message - From: Bruce Feist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source Gelu Gogancea wrote: It's quite right, some SQL DataBase engines(like Oracle,DB2,msSQL) have implemented facilities for this. Distributed database can be achieved,like example, using DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS(let's say CORBA).In my understanding that means that MySQL already can be used like distributed database. Can be used like is not the same as is. Similarly, by writing software in C, you can achieve SQL and use OS files like a relational database -- that doesn't mean that flat files *are* a relational database. Finally,What i wish to say is that distributed databases depend on us to be achieved and not by the RDBMS. Yes, it can be done manually... but there are many advantages to having the distributed capabilities built into the RDBMS itself. I've used such systems (Computer Associates' OpenIngres product), and when distributed capabilities are needed it's far superior to use a product designed for it. Some examples of the improvements are: 1) Distributed optimizer automatically takes advantage of changes to distribution structure 2) Applications can be written which are independant of distribution structure 3) Complexity of applications is reduced, resulting in lower development costs and fewer bugs 4) Transaction management spanning databases on multiple computers Paul have right and i read very carefully him message:He said (very explicit and without any doubt)that MySQL can not manage multiple tables which are hosted on different servers with one single query.For me this is not a reason to not use MySQL for distributed database system. It's one factor, though. If we relax the definition of a distributed database system to be a client-server RDBMS which can be used to build an application which can combine information from queries to multiple databases on multiple computers, as it seems you wish to do, then yes, MySQL qualifies, and has its usual advantages of low cost, open source, and speed. Depending on the project's needs, these may or may not be enough to counterbalance built-in distribution capabilities of true distributed RDBMSs. If i remember well, on the MySQL website is a link to a german company which has develop a modules which treat multiple MySQL database(hosted on different machine of course) to a logical one. If so, then using it in conjunction with MySQL would indeed create a distributed database management system. Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
This product was mentioned recently in the MySQL newsletter and in a MySQL press release. From the company's description of it: EAC uses clustering technology with a unique group communication replication technology, which provides the consistency of synchronous replication at the speed of asynchronous replication, with no decrease of overall performance. EAC combines multiple physical SQL databases, working as one logical, highly available database. It takes full advantage of available resources and balances the workload between clustered databases. It's not free, but they've got a free evaluation version, and it looks like it might do what you're looking for. If anyone has used this product, I for one would be really interested in hearing any feedback on it. Brian McCain - Original Message - From: Bruce Feist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source Gelu Gogancea wrote: It's quite right, some SQL DataBase engines(like Oracle,DB2,msSQL) have implemented facilities for this. Distributed database can be achieved,like example, using DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS(let's say CORBA).In my understanding that means that MySQL already can be used like distributed database. Can be used like is not the same as is. Similarly, by writing software in C, you can achieve SQL and use OS files like a relational database -- that doesn't mean that flat files *are* a relational database. Finally,What i wish to say is that distributed databases depend on us to be achieved and not by the RDBMS. Yes, it can be done manually... but there are many advantages to having the distributed capabilities built into the RDBMS itself. I've used such systems (Computer Associates' OpenIngres product), and when distributed capabilities are needed it's far superior to use a product designed for it. Some examples of the improvements are: 1) Distributed optimizer automatically takes advantage of changes to distribution structure 2) Applications can be written which are independant of distribution structure 3) Complexity of applications is reduced, resulting in lower development costs and fewer bugs 4) Transaction management spanning databases on multiple computers Paul have right and i read very carefully him message:He said (very explicit and without any doubt)that MySQL can not manage multiple tables which are hosted on different servers with one single query.For me this is not a reason to not use MySQL for distributed database system. It's one factor, though. If we relax the definition of a distributed database system to be a client-server RDBMS which can be used to build an application which can combine information from queries to multiple databases on multiple computers, as it seems you wish to do, then yes, MySQL qualifies, and has its usual advantages of low cost, open source, and speed. Depending on the project's needs, these may or may not be enough to counterbalance built-in distribution capabilities of true distributed RDBMSs. If i remember well, on the MySQL website is a link to a german company which has develop a modules which treat multiple MySQL database(hosted on different machine of course) to a logical one. If so, then using it in conjunction with MySQL would indeed create a distributed database management system. Bruce Feist - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
To anyone that cares I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. I have found one, Backplane, but as I understand it it is used for BSD Unix. If anyone can help it would be much appreciated. tx Jimmy the hat - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source
To anyone that *didn't see the forest because of the trees*. You already find it. Regards, Gelu _ G.NET SOFTWARE COMPANY Permanent e-mail address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: james [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:44 PM Subject: Looking for a bona fide distributed database that is open source To anyone that cares I am looking for a bona fide distributed database system, like Oracle or SQLServer, but open source running on Linux. I have found one, Backplane, but as I understand it it is used for BSD Unix. If anyone can help it would be much appreciated. tx Jimmy the hat - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Is MySQL support distributed database ?
Is MySQL support distributed database or not ? If yes, then please let me know , how it's doing . Maybe not in a sense you'd like, but it has support for replication. Just read up on the manual, as in (the url will propably wrap): http://www.mysql.com/documentation/mysql/bychapter/manual_Replication.html#R eplication Now that you know about the term 'replication' you can just read the manual.. -- Aigars - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Is MySQL support distributed database ?
Dear Sir, Is MySQL support distributed database or not ? If yes, then please let me know , how it's doing . Regards Rajesh Matkar
Distributed Database
Hi, This maybe a recurring question, but can MySQL be configured to work as a distributed database? As a distributed database, I mean having the database spanning several servers. For example: Server 1 has 30 gb of free disk Server 2 has 50 gb of free disk Server 3 has 90 gb of free disk My database will be 140Gb, and has to be spanned over Server1, server2 and server3. Preferably, I would like to use Windows NT Server / 2000 Advanced Server, as we do not have the time to learn Linux at this time (and the company in question does not believe in free software, but that will change :) - a Linux or FreeBSD solution could be envisaged if needed - Would the installation of the database on an NFS volume be a solution? I no very little about NFS but it sounds interesting. Any and all input welcome! Cordially, Daniel Page - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
