From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ryan Kelly <rpkelly22(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ondrej Ivanič <ondrej(dot)ivanic(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL, OLAP, and Large Clusters |
Date: | 2012-09-28 02:18:11 |
Message-ID: | CAKt_ZfuN+RkVuhWs0pBE=fFJtbJRW4hg6he-dhoiZOq0T3+C+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ryan Kelly <rpkelly22(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > At this time I would try:
> > - Postgres-XC
> From what I understand, more of a write-scaleable-oriented solution. We
> mostly will need read scalability. I also don't think it really handles
> redundancy.
>
From my understanding it gets around the key read scalability issue in
PostgreSQL, which is a lack of intraquery parallelism. Since components of
a query can run on different storage nodes concurrently, this helps a great
deal. It doesn't do the things a column store would help with but it is
still a major step forward.
As for redundancy, Postgres-XC handles redundancy on the coordinator side,
but on the storage node side, I believe you could use streaming replication
and other standard PostgreSQL approaches to redundancy there.
Hope this helps,
Chris Travers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Hancock | 2012-09-28 04:37:25 | replicate or multi-master for 9.1 or 9.2 |
Previous Message | Maxim Boguk | 2012-09-28 00:49:19 | Question about ip4r contrib and PostgreSQL 9.2 |