Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Date: 2006-12-22 05:44:34
Message-ID: 1166766274.5594.91.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


> >> With One Big Database, you can get a SAN and attach a whole lot of
> >> disk space, but your mobo will only accept a certain number of DIMMs
> >> and processors of certain designs. And when your growing mega
> >> database maxes out your h/w, you're stuck.
> >
> > Define mega... Because you would need to be in the multi-terrabyte
> > range.
>
> I'm thinking more of RAM and CPU.

32GB is an awful lot of ram... as is 8 cores. You can get 16 core
machines now that will take 64GB.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John DeSoi 2006-12-22 06:26:47 Re: Website Hosting Service and Security
Previous Message mike 2006-12-22 05:19:23 Re: Best Perl DBI Driver for Postgres