[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex J. Avriette
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support
>
>
> Recently I was tasked with creating a "distribution system&quo
Keith Bottner wrote:
I understand your position Andreas and respect your opinion; maybe what I
have identified as requirements is what you are specifying as *real* issues.
I hope so, because I to would like to avoid unnecessary dbms efforts.
You got me very right. I didn't mean to declare high vol
x27;Alex J. Avriette'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support
Keith Bottner wrote:
>Alex,
>
>I agree that this is something that is worth spending time on. This
>resembles the Oracle RAC (Real Application Cluster). While other people
&
Keith Bottner wrote:
Alex,
I agree that this is something that is worth spending time on. This
resembles the Oracle RAC (Real Application Cluster). While other people may
feel that the amount of data is unreasonable I have a similar problem that
will only be solved using such a solution.
In regar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex J. Avriette
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support
Recently I was tasked with creating a "distribution system" fo
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 01:54, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:20:07PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Replication won't help if those are all mostly
> That's what I said, and what I meant. Ten billion transactions equates
> to 115,740 transactions per second.
Have you tried to look at the scientific comunity? CERN has setups
that produce such large amounts of data - try searching google for
http://www.google.com/search?q=cern+event+database
Alex,
> I find myself wondering what other people are doing with postgres that
> this doesn't seem to have come up. When one searches for postgres
> clustering on google, they will find lots of HA products. However,
> nobody seems to be attempting to create very high throughput clusters.
Have you
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:20:07PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a
> > > small percentage, even 1% would
> replication. Am I hearing that nobody believes scalability is a
> concern? I think many of us would like to see features that would
> allow large scale installations to be more practical. I also think most
> of us would agree that the current "graft-on" replication methods are
> sub-ideal.
You
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 21:01, Alex J. Avriette wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a
> > small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or
> > DELETES, master / slave re
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> Replication won't help if those are all mostly write transactions. If a
> small percentage, even 1% would be challenging, is INSERTS, UPDATES or
> DELETES, master / slave replication might get you somewhere.
There is no way on earth we
> The fact is, there are situations in which such extreme traffic is
> warranted. My concern is that I am not able to use postgres in such
> situations because it cannot scale to that level. I feel that it would
> be possible to reach that level with support in the postmaster for
> replication.
R
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:07:14PM +0100, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> >I feel that it would be a very good thing if some thinking on this
> >subject was done. In the future, people will hopefully begin using
> >postgres for more intense applications. We are looking at perhaps many
> >tens of billions o
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
I feel that it would be a very good thing if some thinking on this
subject was done. In the future, people will hopefully begin using
postgres for more intense applications. We are looking at perhaps many
tens of billions of transactions per day within the next year or two.
Recently I was tasked with creating a "distribution system" for
postgres nodes here at work. This would allow us to simply bring up a
new box, push postgres to it, and have a new database.
At the same time, we have started to approach the limits of what we can
do with postgres on one machine. Our
16 matches
Mail list logo
