[postgis-users] Best way to

[louvy.joseph at gmail.com]

Thanks Paul. We are already using multiple instances of geoservers with 
single postgis server. (We are starting new geoserver dynamically based 
on the load). At this point, I don't have enough load to saturate the 
database but I am just preparing myself to a condition where too many 
geoservers (that would mean too many users behind them in turn) would 
swamp the single database instance.

Are there any benchmark numbers for postgresql/postgis on how many 
simultaneous transactions it can handle? 80% of our data is wfs or wms 
but 20% is going to be wfs-t updates.

Can somebody please point me to any benchmark numbers for 
postgresql/postgis system?

Thanks again
Louvy

Paul Ramsey wrote:
> louvy.joseph at gmail.com wrote:
>> We are developing a solution using geoserver with postgis postresql 
>> server. Out database is going to be huge and our projection is that 
>> number of simultaneous users will be too huge to be handled by single 
>> database.
>
> And you think you're going to bottleneck at the database? :) Better 
> check out Geoserver more closely. :)
>
>> What are the best practices currently available to handle this? 
>> Please do comment  on  some of the open  thoughts we have:
>>
>> 1) Does it make sense to split the database based on geography? For 
>> example, single database for each continent or a country. But we have 
>> concerns on changes needed to our client for handling the region 
>> boundaries and the features crossing region boundaries.
>
> If your features are going to be crossing boundaries, then no, 
> partitioning on geography is not wise. There are probably other 
> variables you can partition on. Anything that has a hard 
> non-overlapping domain is a candidate (user id, for example).
>
>> 2)  We are also thinking of multi-master replication solutions. Can 
>> somebody give opinion of a) Postgres-R  b)  PgCluster  c) Bucardo - 
>> d) Sequoia ? Which of them is stable? Which is more mature and has 
>> more community? Which is better: synchronous versus asynchronous 
>> replication?
>
> None of the multi-master technologies for postgres are particularly 
> mature. But there is no guarantee you actually need multi-master. 
> Having a single update server and multiple query servers might serve 
> just as well.
>
>> 3) BTW, how many users a single postgres database instance (say on a 
>> 2GHz Pentium 2GB memory system) can handle?
>
> This depends entirely on what they are doing, so an answer is not 
> possible with this much information.
>
> P.
>