I never considered MySQL because I really DO need transactions. MySQL also lacks many enterprise features we need; well they say they have them but from my testing they are a bit under-cooked.
I need atomic actions across an N number of application servers. The goal here is scalability, which is why I brought up clustering. Unfortunately, we really do need those transactions :(
Thought has gone into solutions other than a relational database but they all ended up at the same place ... we started to design a database. Basically, we need the features of a relational database so other solutions started to look like one.
thanks for the help,
skye
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 06:55 -0800, brian stone wrote:
> Are there any built in tools or 3rd party tools for distributing a
> postgresql database? I need an active active configuration; master-
> master with fail over. The project I am working needs to support a
> very large number of transactions a second. It will eventually require
> a main frame, or some absurd hardware. It makes much more sense to
> consider a clustered configuration. DB requests come in from a row of
> application servers. It would be nice if these requests could be
> distributed.
>
Consider pgpool, and look at the partitioning feature (which uses
different machines for different records, allowing writes to happen very
quickly).
Also, depending on what your needs are, a relational database might not
be right for you. You say you need transactions, but if you're comparing
to MySQL's master-master, I don't think that even supports ACID
transactions. Do you actually need transactions, or just many writes per
second (perhaps to memory rather than disk)?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on
Yahoo! Answers.
