From: | "J(dot) Andrew Rogers" <jrogers(at)neopolitan(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Carlos Eduardo Smanioto <csmanioto(at)uol(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2004-05-05 21:11:29 |
Message-ID: | 1083791489.11496.23.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 11:55, Carlos Eduardo Smanioto wrote:
> What's the case of bigger database PostgreSQL (so greate and amount of
> registers) that they know???
You might want to fix the month on your system time.
With respect to how big PostgreSQL databases can get in practice, these
are our two biggest implementations:
- 0.5 Tb GIS database (this maybe upwards of 600-700Gb now, I didn't
check)
- 10 Gb OLTP system with 70 million rows and a typical working set of
2-3 Gb.
Postgres is definitely capable of handling large pretty databases with
ease. There are some narrow types of workloads that it doesn't do so
well on, but for many normal DBMS loads it scales quite well.
j. andrew rogers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-05-05 21:23:03 | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-05-05 20:21:41 | Re: Prestige users |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-05-05 21:23:03 | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Paul Tuckfield | 2004-05-05 18:13:11 | Re: very high CPU usage in "top", but not in "mpstat" |