Обсуждение: PostgreSQL isn't enough scalable as Oracle or DB2
Hi, have a nice day. I'm reading about PostgreSQL Architecture Fundamentals for taking the Associate Exam, and i found this article:
I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this:
Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability, PostgreSQL does not scale at all. For large cluster based clustering, commercial database systems are by far more mature; some good implementations include Oracle and DB2.
The article is from 2009 and i know that PostgreSQL has been getting better and better but i don't know if this is true or if this have been surpassed or if it was a lie.
Regards.
***************************
Oscar Calderon
Analista de Sistemas
Soluciones Aplicativas S.A. de C.V.
www.solucionesaplicativas.com
Cel. (503) 7741 7850 Tel. (503) 2522-2834
Oscar Calderon
Analista de Sistemas
Soluciones Aplicativas S.A. de C.V.
www.solucionesaplicativas.com
Cel. (503) 7741 7850 Tel. (503) 2522-2834
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Oscar Calderon <ocalderon@solucionesaplicativas.com> wrote: > http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html > > I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this: > > Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or > equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability, > PostgreSQL does not scale at all. This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different options that pre-date this article. The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.
And, the page mentioned above seems to be copied verbatim (and without attribution) from a 2004 paper here:http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this: Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability, PostgreSQL does not scale at all.This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different options that pre-date this article. The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.
http:// www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc
-- Korry
Ahh ok, yeah both emails are very useful. I also thought about replication but because in the article is covered as a separated topic i thought that it had nothing to do with scalability.
Regards and thanks.
***************************
Oscar Calderon
Analista de Sistemas
Soluciones Aplicativas S.A. de C.V.
www.solucionesaplicativas.com
Cel. (503) 7741 7850 Tel. (503) 2522-2834
Oscar Calderon
Analista de Sistemas
Soluciones Aplicativas S.A. de C.V.
www.solucionesaplicativas.com
Cel. (503) 7741 7850 Tel. (503) 2522-2834
2014-04-21 14:53 GMT-06:00 Korry Douglas <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com>:
And, the page mentioned above seems to be copied verbatim (and without attribution) from a 2004 paper here:http://reshmaparveen.blogspot.com/2009/12/postgresql-system-architecture.html I was reading the Scalability section, where it mentions this: Even though the query receiving thread is alone it still offers better or equal scalability to MySQL. In terms of multi-computer scalability, PostgreSQL does not scale at all.This statement was wrong in 2009 and it's still wrong today. We were using slony well before 2009 with read slaves to handle massive read loads. While muti-master setups are still pretty new in the PostgreSQL universe, there are some seups like Bucardo. Of course this paper doesn't mention whether or not they're referring to shared storage or separate storage, and what kind of loads would be expected. RedHat Cluster server can provide failover etc. There are several different options that pre-date this article. The fact that it then goes on the sing the praises of MySQL clusters as reliable and stable makes me question the whole article.
http:// www.benjaminarai.com/downloads/whitepapers/postgresql.doc
-- Korry