Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote: > > That reminds me of the requirement of having Multi Master Replication in > > place to do Parallel Query Execution. Sync Multi Master Replication > > being better, while Async Multi Master Replication obviously leads to > > inconsistent responses, when queried in parallel. That may be acceptable > > in certain situations. > > Oops, during rereading "Clustering For Parallel Query Execution", I've > noticed that you mention Data Partitioning as one possible way to do > Parallel Query Execution. Thus Multi Master Replication obviously is not > a requirement, but just another way to allow for Parallel Query > Execution. Mentioning that as well would probably be good.
Uh, multi-master replication allows for load balancing, but it doesn't help a single query to run any faster. Think of having only one query running on the cluster. Parallel execution allows a single query to use more than one computer, right? > IMHO, the advice to use multiple, independent databases to do parallel > query execution sounds a little meager. Of course it's also parallel > query execution, but it's not what most people suspect to find under > that section, I would guess. Uh, this confuses me. What is missing? You split tables across multiple servers. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
