Mike,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is
200bytes
long,
that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written
neatly
and hasn't been updated much).
I'll keep that in mind (minimizing
Yes. What's pretty large? We've had to redefine large recently, now
we're
talking about systems with between 100TB and 1,000TB.
- Luke
Well, I said large, not gargantuan :) - Largest would probably be around
a few TB, but the problem I'm having to deal with at the moment is large
numbers
On 9/18/06, Bucky Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question is at what point do I have to get fancy with those big
tables? From your presentation, it looks like PG can handle 1.2 billion
records or so as long as you write intelligent queries. (And normal PG
should be able to handle that,
On Monday 18 September 2006 13:56, Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
just another fyi, if you have a really big database, you can forget
about doing pg_dump for backups (unless you really don't care about
being x day or days behind)...you simply have to due some type of
good normalization skills are really important for large databases,
along with materialization strategies for 'denormalized sets'.
Good points- thanks. I'm especially curious what others have done for
the materialization. The matview project on gborg appears dead, and I've
only found a
Do the basic math:If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes long, that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written neatly and hasn't been updated much). If you have to do a full table scan, then it will take roughly 400 seconds with a single 10k RPM
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes long,
that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written neatly
and hasn't been updated much).
If you're in that range it doesn't even count
Bucky,
On 9/18/06 7:37 AM, Bucky Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question is at what point do I have to get fancy with those big
tables? From your presentation, it looks like PG can handle 1.2 billion
records or so as long as you write intelligent queries. (And normal PG
should be able to
Sweet - thats good - RAID 10 support seems like an odd thing to leave out.AlexOn 9/18/06, Luke Lonergan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Alex,On 9/18/06 4:14 PM, Alex Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Be warned, the tech specs page: http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/specs.xml#anchor3
doesn't mention
