Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Re: 2 phase commit: performance implications? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Andy Ballingall
Subject Re: 2 phase commit: performance implications?
Date
Msg-id 20051221121050.ABC559DC804@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 2 phase commit: performance implications?  (David Roussel <pgsql-performance@diroussel.xsmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance


>Why not just query adjacent databases, rather than copying the data around?

The reasons I didn't choose this way were:
1) I didn't think there's a way to write a query that can act on the data in
two
Databases as though it was all in one, and I didn't want to get into merging
multiple database query results on the Application side. I'd rather just
have all the needed data sitting in a single database so that I can perform
whatever query I like without complication.
2) Most database accesses are reads, and I didn't want a big network
overhead for these, especially since I'm aiming for each database to be
entirely RAM resident.

>If you really wanted to do this, do you need 2pc?  Once data has been
uploaded to the database for region A, then asynchronously copy the data to
B, C, D and E later, using a queue. 

I've always assumed that my data needed to be consistent. I guess there are
some circumstances where it isn't really a problem, but each would need to
be carefully evaluated. The easy answer is to say 'yes, it must be
consistent'.

>If you try to commit to all at once, then if one fails, then none has the
data.

Yes, I'd prefer things to be that way in any event.

Regards,
Andy


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Alban Medici \(NetCentrex\)"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] need help
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Windows performance again