Re: Implementing "thick"/"fat" databases

Am 25.07.2011 10:24, schrieb Sim Zacks:
> On 07/25/2011 11:06 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
>
>> Am 22.07.2011 21:15, schrieb Karl Nack:
>>> to move as much business/transactional logic as
>>> possible into the database, so that client applications become little
>>> more than moving data into and out of the database using a well-defined
>>> API, most commonly (but not necessarily) through the use of stored
>>> procedures.
>>
>> Beside the points already mentioned, doing this will might cause
>> bottle necks if you have complicated transactions as the DB-cluster
>> might can not be scaled as good as maybe a farm of application server
>> could be done.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Frank
>>
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that to handle business
> logic processing, I may require X servers. Only a percentage of that
> traffic actually requires database processing. if I use a cluster of
> application servers against a single database, it will scale better then
> if I have to cluster my database, which brings in all sorts of messy
> master-master replication issues.
>
> Is this accurate?

As I don't know the kind of your application and business as well as
your structure of code you already have I cannot say for sure. There is
no golden-100%-all-will-be-solved-rule ... this is what I can say.

Cheers,
Frank