Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
Date: 2006-09-18 23:58:13
Message-ID: 20060918235810.GS6030@mathom.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
>If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes long,
>that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written neatly
>and hasn't been updated much).

If you're in that range it doesn't even count as big or challenging--you
can keep it memory resident for not all that much money.

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Francisco Reyes 2006-09-19 00:21:16 Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
Previous Message Marc McIntyre 2006-09-18 23:48:10 LIKE query problem