On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Francisco Olarte
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sébastien:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Sébastien Lorion
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Correct me if I am wrong, but will it not also suffer the same
>> > limitation as
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Francisco Olarte
wrote:
> Hi Sébastien:
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Sébastien Lorion
> 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 w
Hi Sébastien:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Sébastien Lorion
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 canno
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Keith Fiske wrote:
> Not sure if this will work for you, but sharing a similar scenario in case
> it may work for you.
>
> An extension I wrote provides similar logical replication as you've
> probably seen in other tools.
> https://github.com/omniti-labs/mimeo
> O
Here's PostgreSQL-based sharding solution which provides both
read/write horizontal scalability.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/postgres-xc/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://sourceforge.net/projects/postgres-xc/
Hope this helps.
---
Koichi Suzuki
2014-06-03 3:47 GMT+09:00 Sébastien Lorion
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Sébastien Lorion
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kevin Goess wrote:
>
>> > So my conclusion is that for now, the best way to scale read-only
>> queries for a sharded master is to
>> > implement map-reduce at the application level.
>>
>> That's the conclu
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kevin Goess wrote:
> > So my conclusion is that for now, the best way to scale read-only
> queries for a sharded master is to
> > implement map-reduce at the application level.
>
> That's the conclusion I would expect. It's the price you pay for sharding,
> it's p
> So my conclusion is that for now, the best way to scale read-only queries
for a sharded master is to
> implement map-reduce at the application level.
That's the conclusion I would expect. It's the price you pay for sharding,
it's part of the deal.
But it's also the benefit you get from sharding
On 6/1/2014 12:59 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
it would have been nice to avoid the additional complexity if it had
been possible to merge sharded tables on a binary level (which should
be much faster than statement level), given that their records will
never overlap (i.e. the same record is nev
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:
> I have a master database sharded by user_id, with globally unique IDs for
> everything, except shared configuration data stored in global tables
> (resources strings, system parameters, etc).
>
> What would be the best (ie both fast and
10 matches
Mail list logo
