> What I don't understand is why they separate the listener and database
> connection daemons if you always need one of each to do anything.
Probably for scalability. The database engines are doing the work and
the sooner they can free themselves up (due to a slow client, for example),
the bett
> On http://www.firstworks.com/sqlrelay/programming/perldbd.html it says:
>
> "For the duration of the session, the client stays connected to a
> database connection daemon. While one client is connected, no other
> client can connect. Care should be taken to minimize the length of a
> session."
>
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>>Are there any benchmark comparisons between apache::dbi and mysql
>>
> relay?
>
> I've never heard of this "mysql relay" before. A Google search found
> this:
> http://www.firstworks.com/sqlrelay.html
>
> Is that it? Looks interesting!
On http://www.firstworks.com/sql
> Are there any benchmark comparisons between apache::dbi and mysql
relay?
I've never heard of this "mysql relay" before. A Google search found
this:
http://www.firstworks.com/sqlrelay.html
Is that it? Looks interesting!
> We're planning on having four sql servers, one of them will do all of
Hello,
Are there any benchmark comparisons between apache::dbi and mysql relay?
We're planning on having four sql servers, one of them will do all of the
writes to the db and the other three will only be used for reads from the db.
The data in the db that is doing the writing will be constantly
