Hi. Sorry for my late reply - I appreciate your answers. [I see a 1:89 ratio between SQL UPDATE's and (INSERT's + DELETE's) and wanted to find out why.]
Dear Christopher: I've got 21 sequences in my replication set. Thank you for the vote of confidence in 2.0.5. Thanks for the data point that Slony does do SQL UPDATE's. Dear Steve: Yes, it sounds like I've run into bug #126. I don't really have anything to add to the bug ticket (besides "me too"). If I can help gather any additional information, please let me know what... I'm quite interested in solving this -- we're a small shop and any time a system is not self-healing, it can mean less sleep for me. Dear Vick: I do understand running slony replication will have SOME overhead. I just want to understand difference between 1.2 and 2. If there is a big difference, it's a clear argument to move to 2. Looks like I should do some testing in our test lab. And Vick, you asked: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Vick Khera <[email protected]> wrote: > How many rows are affected per update? Slony replicates each row > specifically, not the queries themselves. So if you update 10000 > rows, there will be 10000 records for slony to copy over to the other > end. I have no idea. I didn't write the queries, but I am (by default) the DBA. How could I tell how many rows are affected per update? (Feel free to RTFM me in the write direction.) Thanks very much, Aleksey _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
