X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C375C9FB2EA for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85071-04 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:25:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.229]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8A49FB2AB for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t13so507609wxc for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:25:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-virus-scanned; b=ScHiSyVdBzSAv7Ao2bbsgeZG5BHfYLybOTI6AgUQIFgeo1syQWr3kkCeP440fPDLT5VQP4kec/qsn3dq3YEnk/1104UaBDMUdkp1ek6jzoEG1c2/4HAr4wSrGbta8R2GfsD2UQR62wCZNc55f7gDzyeP9T+v8RAQq4C3JTnpK/A= Received: by 10.70.76.11 with SMTP id y11mr11529894wxa; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ( [200.139.119.40]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id i18sm8682786wxd.2006.08.15.06.25.15; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFF7BABDC; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:11 -0300 (BRT) Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (strongwill.g2ctech [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07143-02-5; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:11 -0300 (BRT) Received: from jupiter.g2ctech (unknown [10.0.0.240]) by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2F6B3EF2; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:11 -0300 (BRT) Received: by jupiter.g2ctech (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E5479101C8D; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:00 -0300 (BRT) From: Jorge Godoy To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: Michael Fuhr , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Multiple DB join In-Reply-To: <20060815131820.GA21939@phlogiston.dyndns.org> (Andrew Sullivan's message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:18:20 -0400") References: <44E0EA72.2090505@indiana.edu> <20060815103624.GA21634@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <20060815113832.GA99592@winnie.fuhr.org> <87fyfy8ayo.fsf@gmail.com> <20060815131820.GA21939@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:25:00 -0300 Message-ID: <87ejvi6sib.fsf@ieee.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at g2ctech.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.757 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200608/106 X-Sequence-Number: 26064 Andrew Sullivan 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