Re: PostgreSQL isn't enough scalable as Oracle or DB2

Ahh ok, yeah both emails are very useful. I also thought about replication
but because in the article is covered as a separated topic i thought that
it had nothing to do with scalability.

Regards and thanks.

***************************
Oscar Calderon
Analista de Sistemas
Soluciones Aplicativas S.A. de C.V.
www.solucionesaplicativas.com
Cel. (503) 7741 7850 Tel. (503) 2522-2834

2014-04-21 14:53 GMT-06:00 Korry Douglas <korry(dot)douglas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:

>
>
>
> http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html
>
> I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this:
>
> Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or
> equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability,
> PostgreSQL does not scale at all.
>
> This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were
> using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read
> loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL
> universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper
> doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or
> separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat
> Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different
> options that pre-date this article.
>
> The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters
> as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.
>
>
>
> And, the page mentioned above seems to be copied verbatim (and without
> attribution) from a 2004 paper here:
>
> http:// www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc
>
>
> -- Korry
>
>