From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Billions of records? |
Date: | 2003-07-15 14:23:37 |
Message-ID: | 200307151953.37536.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 19:15, John Bercik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell me what the limitations are regarding records?
> Say I have a table with 50 fields of 20 characters each. If a table can
> be 16 TB, how many records can it hold?
Each tuple in postgresql has around 28 bytes of overhead. Index tuple has 12
bytes. Besides varchar would include additional overhead. And char won't be
true char because it always stores length of string. Although I have
specialised char types developed by some kind hackers which are true chars.
Other than that there is no limit on size of table. Check this
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html#4.5
BTW, is it coincidence that your figure of 16TB matches the limit there?
> If you all have any other size benchmarks or such please include it. Is
> PG ready for huge db's? How big is the biggest known?
I have had references of databases as big as 300GB. People routinely have more
than 10GB databases. You can dig archives for the same.
HTH
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert J. Sanford, Jr. | 2003-07-15 14:32:42 | Re: Are you frustrated with PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-15 14:15:21 | Re: Large Objects in serializable transaction question |