Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C068633828 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:45:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36204-01 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:45:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ew0-f218.google.com (mail-ew0-f218.google.com [209.85.219.218]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F12E63381D for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:45:28 -0400 (AST) Received: by ewy18 with SMTP id 18so110861ewy.19 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:45:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=r7UZx0i5PnLTU+g/LcbHpl8g4NwbSaYYWdpH+QSmmro=; b=Vx/4n9t+ZWTAqcDIU7f8CKkJ+/l8KXauEK+NghsfOext2owXPG2j5L2iad1rdezONu oV4OyryceSAWZ1y80dg4rDyfL6XZaVB0fQLlH9/tHkTyIMRpx4KdHeUdyWyQx7ps3pg3 6Yz5KxfOvY97LguKO5svROaWa4RfPcszrrYzw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=FPhoqmKT0zaq1XXPk/sRfLwTCW3YnpoH6eBP1F8V9MqZutD+38PzfjgvfGPHfl99gV oa4wwOPnFfvZfIWnrZ06R8LAKh4o3mAfXCnQFvgkwh5yau7AehPj4N/x1pQqWyAE0SoG vU8EykSLAGhtICHRhifzO+zU/6nfXCBiRyFbg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.89.10 with SMTP id b10mr1032176wef.182.1257435925871; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:45:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <200610271623.37525.beauh@bluefrogmobile.com> <1162003132.687.8.camel@pampa> <200610301928.51255.beauh@bluefrogmobile.com> <23177.1162265010@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:45:24 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4ab2cf23470736f7 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [SQL] Case Preservation disregarding case From: Erik Aronesty To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d58b2fb07c750477a19da4 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.598 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200911/189 X-Sequence-Number: 148888 --0016e6d58b2fb07c750477a19da4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 An update on pg_comparator as an efficient way to do master-slave replication. I have been using it for 2 years on a "products" table that has grown from 12,000 rows to 24,000 rows. There are 3 slaves and 1 master. It is sync'ed every 10 minutes. It has never failed or caused problems. On 23039 rows, with under 100 rows changed, over a 3mbit internet connection, and on a the sync takes 3.3 seconds, 0.94 seconds of which is CPU time (1.86 GHZ intel dual core). Most of the time is waiting for the network. And that could be sped up considerably with compression (maybe 5-10 times for my data)... I don't think the postgres communications protocol considers compression an option. I do not synchronize all the columns ... just the 15 most important ones Average number of bytes per row is 284 Primary Key is an autoincrement integer id Databases are all on the internet at cheap colocation centers with suppsedly 10mbit high speed connections that realistically get about 3 mbit. I ship a backup and restore of the table every week... in case there are tons of changes and the system burps when there are too many.... I also schedule scripts that might make lots of changes to happen before the dump/restore. In my 15 years as a DBA, I have never had "replication" (which some say this isn't, and I say that's a matter of how you define it) work so well. --0016e6d58b2fb07c750477a19da4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable An update on pg_comparator as an efficient way to do master-slave replicati= on.

I have been using it for 2 years on a "products" table= that has grown from 12,000 rows to 24,000 rows.=A0 There are 3 slaves and = 1 master.=A0 It is sync'ed every 10 minutes.

It has never failed or caused problems.

On 23039 rows, with unde= r 100 rows changed, over a 3mbit internet connection, and on a the sync tak= es 3.3 seconds, 0.94 seconds of which is CPU time (1.86 GHZ intel dual core= ).=A0 Most of the time is waiting for the network.=A0=A0 And that could be = sped up considerably with compression (maybe 5-10 times for my data)... I d= on't think the postgres communications protocol considers compression a= n option.

I do not synchronize all the columns ... just the 15 most important one= s

Average number of bytes per row is 284

Primary Key is an autoincrement integer id

Databases are all on the internet at cheap colocation centers with suppsedly 10mbit high speed connections that realistically get about 3 mbit.

I ship a backup and restore of the table every week... in case there are tons of changes and the system burps when there are too many.... I also schedule scripts that might make lots of changes to happen before the dump/restore.

In my 15 years as a DBA, I have never had &= quot;replication" (which some say this isn't, and I say that's= a matter of how you define it) work so well.


--0016e6d58b2fb07c750477a19da4--