You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com> on 2012/02/01 22:10:45 UTC
Re: JDBC based Master/slave configuration
Would it be simpler to use different table names for each pair. So
just set the "tablePrefix" on the statements element in xml
configuration.
On 31 January 2012 18:34, mikmela <mi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As it was mentioned in
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-user-Network-of-brokers-and-db-schema-td2342357.html#a2342360
> "Its technically possible to patch the JDBC message store to include a
> broker ID column in all the tables to allow the same JDBC database to be
> used for multiple brokers..."
> Understanding all drawbacks of such approach, we would like to use "shared
> database instance" approach for multiple master/slave groups of brokers as a
> default configuration to simplify client's burden in administration of our
> product. Our software allowing to create/configure multiple brokers in
> master/slave groups dynamically via GUI. The problem is the current ActiveMQ
> master/slave default implementation requires a separate database instance
> for each master/slave group.
> I was wondering if someone has implemented somethinng like this?
> Looking into the source I can see that most of the SQL statements will need
> to be customized... This, seems, can be done via <statements> element in
> configuration xml... Possibly, we'll need own jdbcadapter similar to
> SybaseJDBCAdapter or OracleJDBCAdapter, or just extend
> JDBCPersistenceAdapter. DefaultDatabaseLocker might require to be extended
> as well... Is this correct assessment, or much more is involved?
>
> I'd appreciate any help on this matter...
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JDBC-based-Master-slave-configuration-tp4345431p4345431.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
http://fusesource.com
http://blog.garytully.com
Re: JDBC based Master/slave configuration
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 Cut out a where clause will speed it up
On 2/1/12 3:10 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
> Would it be simpler to use different table names for each pair. So
> just set the "tablePrefix" on the statements element in xml
> configuration.
>
> On 31 January 2012 18:34, mikmela<mi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As it was mentioned in
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-user-Network-of-brokers-and-db-schema-td2342357.html#a2342360
>> "Its technically possible to patch the JDBC message store to include a
>> broker ID column in all the tables to allow the same JDBC database to be
>> used for multiple brokers..."
>> Understanding all drawbacks of such approach, we would like to use "shared
>> database instance" approach for multiple master/slave groups of brokers as a
>> default configuration to simplify client's burden in administration of our
>> product. Our software allowing to create/configure multiple brokers in
>> master/slave groups dynamically via GUI. The problem is the current ActiveMQ
>> master/slave default implementation requires a separate database instance
>> for each master/slave group.
>> I was wondering if someone has implemented somethinng like this?
>> Looking into the source I can see that most of the SQL statements will need
>> to be customized... This, seems, can be done via<statements> element in
>> configuration xml... Possibly, we'll need own jdbcadapter similar to
>> SybaseJDBCAdapter or OracleJDBCAdapter, or just extend
>> JDBCPersistenceAdapter. DefaultDatabaseLocker might require to be extended
>> as well... Is this correct assessment, or much more is involved?
>>
>> I'd appreciate any help on this matter...
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JDBC-based-Master-slave-configuration-tp4345431p4345431.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>