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 1FC3B5352C for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:39:40 -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 36968-01 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 04:39:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0776753C8C for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 01:39:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A34718CDC3; Wed, 11 May 2005 00:39:28 -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 91410-01-2; Wed, 11 May 2005 00:39:26 -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 D659718CDE3; Wed, 11 May 2005 00:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42818C7A.7020207@samurai.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:39:22 +1000 From: Neil Conway User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: Josh Berkus , 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> <428172A2.9030503@samurai.com> <428177E5.4030704@commandprompt.com> In-Reply-To: <428177E5.4030704@commandprompt.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: 200505/188 X-Sequence-Number: 12352 Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: >> Oh? What's wrong with MySQL's clustering implementation? > > Ram only tables :) Sure, but that hardly makes it not "usable". Considering the price of RAM these days, having enough RAM to hold the database (distributed over the entire cluster) is perfectly acceptable for quite a few people. (Another deficiency is in 4.0, predicates in queries would not be pushed down to storage nodes -- so you had to stream the *entire* table over the network, and then apply the WHERE clause at the frontend query node. That is fixed in 5.0, though.) -Neil