| From: | Matej <gmatej(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | PG Sharding |
| Date: | 2018-01-29 14:34:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAJB+8maToQO3nnCgJ-giJ6Wsu+210O6rYEP-KWq0RLG_HZnfWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Everyone.
We are looking at a rather large fin-tech installation. But as scalability
requirements are high we look at sharding of-course.
I have looked at many sources for Postgresql sharding, but we are a little
confused as to shared with schema or databases or both.
So far our understanding:
*SCHEMA.*
PROS:
- seems native to PG
- backup seems easier
- connection pooling seems easier, as you can use same connection between
shard.
CONS:
- schema changes seems litlle more complicated
- heard of backup and maintenance problems
- also some caching problems.
*DATABASE:*
PROS:
- schema changes litlle easier
- backup and administration seems more robust
CONS:
- heard of vacuum problems
- connection pooling is hard, as 100 shards would mean 100 pools
So what is actually the right approach? If anyone could shed some light on
my issue.
*Thanks*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2018-01-29 14:44:45 | Re: PG Sharding |
| Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2018-01-29 14:11:42 | Re: Information on savepoint requirement within transctions |