| From: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aaron Turner <synfinatic(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: large dataset with write vs read clients |
| Date: | 2010-10-09 21:35:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4CB0E006.8010905@vmsinfo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I have a logical problem with asynchronous commit. The "commit" command
should instruct the database to make the outcome of the transaction
permanent. The application should wait to see whether the commit was
successful or not. Asynchronous behavior in the commit statement breaks
the ACID rules and should not be used in a RDBMS system. If you don't
need ACID, you may not need RDBMS at all. You may try with MongoDB.
MongoDB is web scale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Greg Smith:
>
>
>> Given the size of your database, I'd advise you consider a migration
>> to a new version ASAP. 8.4 is a nice stable release at this point,
>> that's the one to consider moving to.
>>
>
> It also offers asynchronous commits, which might be a good tradeoff
> here (especially if the data gathered is not used for billing purposes
> 8-).
>
>
--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
www.vmsinfo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Whelchel | 2010-10-09 23:26:18 | Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2010-10-09 20:45:47 | Re: large dataset with write vs read clients |