[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott.marlowe) wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
For quite some time. I believe the max table size of 32 TB was in effect
as far back as 6.5 or so. It's not some new thing. Now, the 8k row
barrier was broken with 7.1. I personally found the 8k row size barrier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Reina) writes:
The PostgreSQL limitations on the users' page
(http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/limitations.html) still says
that tables are limited to 16 TB, not 32 TB.
Perhaps it should be updated?
There was some concern at the time it was written as to whether
Bradley Kieser wrote:
No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
on who and what you are, the prices can vary. E.g. Educational
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bradley
Kieser) transmitted:
I think as far as PG storage goes you're really on a losing streak
here because PG clustering really isn't going to support this across
multiple servers. We're not even close to the mark as
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:32:27PM +, Bricklen wrote:
Anyways, ss they say, You get what you pay for.
This has not been my experience at all. The correlation between
software price and quality looks to me to be something very close to
random.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is the only player to
look at.
Hope that this helps!
Brad
Tony and Bryn Reina wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Bradley Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Reina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage
Ah! It's been updated then! Coolio! You just can't beat OpenSource!
;-)
Thx for the update!
Brad
Tony and Bryn Reina wrote:
let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO unless someone
else nukes me on this!
I just checked the PostgreSQL
, 2. April 2004 14:03
An: Jürgen Cappel
Betreff: Re: AW: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
Yeah, sorry, my mistake. Thanks for th e correction!
But I had serious problems getting a DB with large tables running on
Ingres 6.4, Sequent Dynix cluster. We had all sorts of errors on the
views
Oracle's main drawbacks are:
a) VERY resource-intensive with a high process startup overhead.
b) VERY expensive. You are talking license fees into the £100 000s for
big iron installations.
Wow! 100,000 pounds for software. Now that is expensive! Is that a ballpark
price for most of the
No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
on who and what you are, the prices can vary. E.g. Educational
facilities have
Bradley Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it isn't. Oracle is expensive but it is also the Rolls Royce, it
seems. I am a strictly OpenSource man so I don't really get into the
pricing thing, but I do know that it is also deal-by-deal and depending
on who and what you are, the prices can
I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
Exactly
For quite some time. I believe the max table size of 32 TB was in effect
as far back as 6.5 or so. It's not some new thing. Now, the 8k row
barrier was broken with 7.1. I personally found the 8k row size barrier
to be a bigger problem back then. And 7.1 broke that in 2001, almost
exactly
Well I for one find it very difficult to choose a DB other than PG and
do so only under duress. It is really only client demand that drives the
decision away from PG but like you, I am finding that more and more, PG
is winning the deal and winning the day. Once the replication and
ability to
At 03:36 AM 4/2/2004, Bradley Kieser wrote:
Hi Tony,
Yep, for the time being you're pretty much limited to this for a table. As
far as commercial DBs go, IMHO (without knowing about DB2) Oracle is the
only player in town that will realistically deal with table sizes in the
order of 100sGB or
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 10:42:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
figures that they will
: Bradley Kieser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Tony and Bryn Reina; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
Well I for one find it very difficult to choose a DB other than PG and
do so only under duress
DBA
-Original Message-
From: Naomi Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 12:43 PM
To: Bradley Kieser
Cc: Tony and Bryn Reina; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
At 03:36 AM 4/2/2004, Bradley Kieser wrote:
Hi Tony,
Yep
and much easier to get going.
Greg Williamson
DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC
-Original Message-
From: Tony and Bryn Reina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 4/2/2004 6:28 AM
To: Bradley Kieser
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
Oracle's
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm fairly sure that Oracle's pricing scales with the iron you plan to
use: the more or faster CPUs you want to run it on, the more you pay.
A large shop can easily get into the $100K license range, but Oracle
figures that they will have spent way more than that on their hardware.
At 12:04 PM 4/2/2004, Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
Informix fees vary but figure about $33,000 per CPU for a web environment
(other licenses are cheaper, for instance, a server with only a handful of
connections). On the plus side for Informix, the Oracle stuff we had
consists of dozens of
Andrew,
Your absolutely right. During the DOTCOM fiasco commercial database licenses
were based on the number of processors the speed of those processors. Oracle's
PowerUnit pricing was one of those stupid attempts. A power unit was defined as 1 CPU
running at 1 MHZ. Mind you a
I have a database that will hold massive amounts of scientific data.
Potentially, some estimates are that we could get into needing
Petabytes (1,000 Terabytes) of storage.
1. Do off-the-shelf servers exist that will do Petabyte storage?
2. Is it possible for PostgreSQL to segment a database
Not really answering the question but I thought I would post this anyway
as it may be of interest.
If you want to have some fun (depending on how production-level the
system needs to be) you can build this level of storage using Linux
clusters and cheap IDE drives. No April foo's joke! I have
let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO unless someone
else nukes me on this!
I just checked the PostgreSQL website and it says that tables are limited to
16 TB not 2 GB.
-Tony
---(end of
- Original Message -
From: Bradley Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Reina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
table. So sadly, PG would have
] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
- Original Message -
From: Bradley Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Reina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
let alone the storate limit of 2GB
Reina
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 21:15
An: Bradley Kieser
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
- Original Message -
From: Bradley Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Reina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Bradley Kieser wrote:
I think as far as PG storage goes you're really on a losing streak here
because PG clustering really isn't going to support this across multiple
servers. We're not even close to the mark as far as clustered servers
and replication management goes,
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Tony and Bryn Reina wrote:
let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO unless someone
else nukes me on this!
I just checked the PostgreSQL website and it says that tables are limited to
16 TB not 2 GB.
Actually,
30 matches
Mail list logo
