Yes, but the key size is very small and independent of the data size. Conservatively, you should be able to hold more than 18,000,000 keys within 4GB of RAM.
Sean Cribbs <[email protected]> Developer Advocate Basho Technologies, Inc. http://basho.com/ On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Mojito Sorbet wrote: > So the limit is not on bytes-per-file, but on records-per-file, and this > because all the keys have to be in memory at once? I guess I am > assuming the default bitcask back end. > > On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 03:31 -0400, Alexander Sicular wrote: >> I think you are confusing the actual file size limitation of certain >> riak backends with the theoretical limits of the riak system. To my >> knowledge there are no such limitations with the current backend >> default other than the physical capacity of an individual node. >> Specifically, memory consumption per key discussed elsewhere. >> >> >> @siculars on twitter >> http://siculars.posterous.com >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:43, Mojito Sorbet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I see mentions of upper size suggestions on Riak database instances in >>> the small GB ranges. (2? 4?) Can one reasonably expect a Riak DB >>> to >>> scale to a couple hundred terrabytes? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> riak-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
