X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A8D53FAE for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 23:49:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17090-03 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 02:49:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8771453F8B for ; Tue, 10 May 2005 23:49:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C7F18CC0E; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com ([205.207.28.82]) by localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 63441-01-10; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [61.88.101.19] (unknown [61.88.101.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672FE18CC30; Tue, 10 May 2005 22:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <428172A2.9030503@samurai.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:49:06 +1000 From: Neil Conway User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering References: <5F94B6EB-3925-4CD3-A67F-4310890B438A@advfn.com> <4280C801.80603@arbash-meinel.com> <200505101046.25108.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200505101046.25108.josh@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.023 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/183 X-Sequence-Number: 12347 Josh Berkus wrote: > Don't hold your breath. MySQL, to judge by their first "clustering" > implementation, has a *long* way to go before they have anything usable. Oh? What's wrong with MySQL's clustering implementation? -Neil