From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gustavo Tonini" <gustavotonini(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fragmentation project |
Date: | 2007-04-27 11:07:43 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0704270407o17789299t3e496505922c6d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/25/07, Gustavo Tonini <gustavotonini(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 4/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Oh, you're talking about distributing partitions across different nodes
> > > and parallelizing queries. No, we don't do that today.
> >
> > PL/Proxy actually works like that, only in smaller scope -
> > for function calls only.
> >
>
> I think that proposed funcionalities cannot be implemented in a PL scope...
Oh, sure. PL/proxy just proves if you can adhere to specific coding-style
- all db access goes via functions - you can solve the problem today,
with simple tools. You dont need even PL/proxy for that, any PL that
can do connections (plpython, plperl, ..) can be used for proxy functions.
PL/proxy just makes it so much easier.
Function based DB API can give additional benefits:
- easy upgradeablility
- easy to change db structure without apps knowing
- easy to monitor/audit
And ofcourse:
- if database hits hardware limits, you can replace all functions
with PLproxy functions and spread data over several partitions.
I think most OLTP apps can be designed around db-functions, with OLAP
it will be bit harder, but there it is less critical also.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-04-27 11:22:22 | Re: Avoiding unnecessary reads in recovery |
Previous Message | rupesh bajaj | 2007-04-27 11:01:48 | When the locially dropped column is also physically dropped |