activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Pavlovich <>
Subject Re: JDBC based Master/slave configuration
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:14:17 GMT
+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<>  wrote:
>> As it was mentioned  in
>> "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:
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at

View raw message