moses wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:22 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> I doubt that will make a search faster. The overhead of splitting the
>> request then joining the output would probably be much higher than
>> letting MySQL do it itself. Additionally, multiple nodes should not be
>> accessing the same physical table.
>>
> The overhead involved is not a problem as i am using a MPI program to
> take care of that.And since the queries run on each nodes is the
> same ,but on different records,there shouldn't be a problem of
> splitting and joining them together.
> But i would like to know more about what u said about why multiple
> nodes cant access the same table..is it really a constraint set by the
> DBMS?
>

I said they can't access the same *physical* table. It's not a good
idea, and can lead to corrupt data - just like it can when you have
multiple programs accessing any other file. So that means you need to
replicate your database across all nodes, which is more overhead.

And yes, you will have a lot more overhead than just communications
between nodes. Everything from parsing the SQL multiple times to
merging and sorting the results from multiple nodes. Not to mention the
network traffic between systems.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================