| From: | Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)pasteur(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Date: | 2000-07-20 08:35:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200007200835.KAA19063@ezili.sis.pasteur.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 20 July 2000, at 10 h 0, the keyboard of Karel Zak
<zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> wrote:
> And what is a "large database"? 1, 5 .. 10Gb? If yes, (IMHO) the PostgreSQL
> is good choice.
Even on Linux? I'm studying a database project where the raw data is 10 to 20
Gb (it will be in several tables in the same database). Linux has a limit of 2
Gb for a file (even on 64-bits machine, if I'm correct). A colleague told me
to use NetBSD instead, because PostgreSQL on a Linux machine cannot host more
than 2 Gb per database. Any practical experience? (I'm not interested in "It
should work".)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jules Bean | 2000-07-20 08:52:01 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2000-07-20 08:00:17 | Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jules Bean | 2000-07-20 08:52:01 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2000-07-20 08:00:17 | Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |