| From: | Koichi Suzuki <koichi(dot)dbms(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sébastien Lorion <sl(at)thestrangefactory(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Goess <kgoess(at)bepress(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Merge a sharded master into a single read-only slave |
| Date: | 2014-06-05 05:57:29 |
| Message-ID: | CABEZHFt_DZeyfTWaXcXHftpAjJJRBUnW5mvOW781xpi_HrZJsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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 <sl(at)thestrangefactory(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kevin Goess <kgoess(at)bepress(dot)com> 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 part of the deal.
>>
>> But it's also the benefit you get from sharding. Once your read traffic
>> grows to the point that it's too much for a single host, you're going to
>> have to re-shard it all again *anyway*. The whole point of sharding is that
>> it allows you to grow outside the capacities of a single host.
>
>
> I am not sure I am following you completely. I can replicate the read-only
> slaves almost as much as I want (with chained replication), so why would I
> be limited to a single host ? You would have a point concerning database
> size, but in my case, the main reason I need to shard is because of the
> amount of writes.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kalai R | 2014-06-05 12:59:20 | Re: Postgresql service stopped automatically after restart |
| Previous Message | sramay | 2014-06-05 05:49:18 | Re: bytea Issue - Reg |