From: Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Multiple DB join
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:00 -0300
Message-ID: <87ejvi6sib.fsf@ieee.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060815131820.GA21939@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <44E0EA72.2090505@indiana.edu>
<20060815103624.GA21634@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
<20060815113832.GA99592@winnie.fuhr.org>
<87fyfy8ayo.fsf@gmail.com>
<20060815131820.GA21939@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 09:01:03AM -0300, Jorge Godoy wrote:
>> I can think that spreading processing requirements should be one. And
>> distributing load another one. Disk space can be solved with new disks and
>> tablespaces, but we can't yet distribute the load through several servers
>> without partitioning.
>
> The cost of inter-node communication isn't nothing, though. It
> strikes me as at least possible that the overhead of dblink is going
> to be larger than whatever gains one makes from adding a new server.
> For only 20M rows, I find it pretty hard to believe the gain is going
> to be demonstrable.
I totally agree with you. But when your base grows, it might start getting
interesting.
I'd like to see some sort of data partitioning in PostgreSQL.
--
Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: jgodoy@gmail.com, ajs@crankycanuck.ca, mike@fuhr.org
Subject: Re: Multiple DB join
In-Reply-To: <87ejvi6sib.fsf@ieee.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox