> > > > I find dblink being a nice tool as long as the data volume to > transfer > > remains low. > > I've evaluated it to implement a clustered Postgres environment, but > > gave it up due to the poor performances. > > Still waiting for the binary transfer before the next try ;-) > > Binary transfer is not a super big deal in terms of performance > actually in the general case. It's only substantially faster in a few > cases like timestamp, geo types, and of course bytea. Lack of > parameterization I find to be a bigger deal actually -- it's more of a > usability headache than a performance thing. > > Also FYI binary dblink between databases is going to be problematic > for any non built in type unless the type oids are synchronized across > databases. > > merlin
Thanks, ... so I don't really understand where all the time get lost in the example I posted a few weeks ago: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-09/msg00436.php Marc Mamin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
