Database replication sounds simple enough: take data from one place and make sure it appears somewhere else, quickly and correctly. But anyone who’s spent time monitoring and troubleshooting replication knows it’s anything but straightforward. Networks fail, logs get backed up, and suddenly your secondary database is minutes (or hour) behind.
That’s why replication metrics matter.
There’s a peculiar habit among some database professionals occasionally to toss logical and physical replication into the same bin. One might as well say socks and shoes are the same because, after all, they both go on your feet, right? But as anyone who’s tried wearing socks in the snow can attest, similarities on the surface can hide a whole universe of differences between logical vs physical replication.
Blurring together logical and physical replication, or neglecting their differences can lead to inefficient data management strategies. Each method has its merits and ideal scenarios of use. Knowing just when to apply each one—understanding their unique roles in the spectrum of data management—helps avoid unnecessary workload, optimizes performance, and ensures data integrity.
Today’s story is about a leader in the automotive spare parts market, spanning 17 European countries, grappling with a significant challenge. They faced the daunting task of managing delayed reporting, ensuring consistency across diverse markets, and customizing reports with limited flexibility. This scenario led to delayed data updates. This, in turn, caused frustration and inefficiency.
Database Performance Monitor allows to fully automatic performance diagnostics of Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL, SAP Hana and Amazon Redshift databases….
Initial situation Automotive spare parts market leader in CEE region operating in 17 European countries, decided to implement a central…
Webinar date: Wednesday 10th March, 11:00am CET Your business growth demands efficient IT services with upgrades and enhancements delivered on…