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 bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +