From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Which replication is the best for our case ? |
Date: | 2015-06-30 19:15:22 |
Message-ID: | 5592EACA.2090009@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/30/2015 9:57 AM, ben.play wrote:
> To be more precise : We have a database with more than 400 Gb and ONE table
> with more than 100 Gb of data. This is huge for doctrine. When the cron
> runs, it writes a lot on the disks in temporary file (although we have 128
> GB of Ram...). Of course, each table is well indexes...
>
> That is why I'm thinking about replication : My server A (master) is for my
> users... and my server B is a server reserved for calculations (and this
> server B which writes on the base)
>
> This is a image of my dream system :
> <http://postgresql.nabble.com/file/n5855916/9e41ce1f-38ea-4fba-a437-a43c598e655c.jpg>
> (If you can't see the image :
> http://tof.canardpc.com/view/9e41ce1f-38ea-4fba-a437-a43c598e655c.jpg)
what happens when master A continues to update/insert into these tables
that your cron job is batch updating on the offline copy ? How would you
merge those changes in ?
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | William Dunn | 2015-06-30 20:27:19 | Re: very slow queries and ineffective vacuum |
Previous Message | Arthur Silva | 2015-06-30 18:24:33 | Re: Which replication is the best for our case ? |