Re: PostgreSQL Scalable ?

From: James Rogers <jamesr(at)best(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: herve(at)elma(dot)fr
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Scalable ?
Date: 2003-10-10 18:33:05
Message-ID: 1065810785.3099.18.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 10:41, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Herve'
> > One other small question ... Does PostgreSQL is scalable ?
>
> Given that we have several members of our community with 2TB databases, and
> one entitiy with a 32TB database, I'd say yes.

It depends on what is meant by "scalable". In terms of physical data
size, definitely yes. In terms of concurrency, it is also pretty good
with only a few caveats (e.g. large SMP systems aren't really exploited
to their potential). However, in terms of working set size it is only
"fair to middling", which is why I'm looking into those parts right now.
So "scalable" really depends on what your load profile looks like. For
some load profiles it is extremely scalable and for other load profiles
less so, though nothing exhibits truly "poor" scalability that I've
found. A lot of scalability is how you set the parameters and design
the system if the underlying engine is reasonably competent. For the
vast majority of purposes, you'll find that PostgreSQL scales just fine.

Cheers,

-James Rogers
jamesr(at)best(dot)com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-10-10 18:39:19 Re: further testing on IDE drives
Previous Message Dror Matalon 2003-10-10 18:23:48 Re: Speeding up Aggregates