| From: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: table size/record limit |
| Date: | 2004-10-21 05:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | 41774A62.4000508@fireserve.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Google probably is much bigger, and on mainframes, and probably Oracle or DB2.
But the table I am worried about is the one sized >= 3.6 GIGA records.
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Do, den 21.10.2004 schrieb Dennis Gearon um 1:30:
>
>>I am designing something that may be the size of yahoo, google, ebay, etc.
>>
>>Just ONE many to many table could possibly have the following
>>characteristics:
>>
>> 3,600,000,000 records
>> each record is 9 fields of INT4/DATE
>>
>>Other tables will have about 5 million records of about the same size.
>>
>>There are lots of scenarios here to lessson this.
>>
>>BUT, is postgres on linux, maybe necessarily a 64 bit system, cabable of
>>this? And there'd be 4-5 indexes on that table.
>
>
> Sure. Why not? 3...5mio records is not really a problem.
> We had bigger tables with historic commercial transactions
> (even on an old dual PIII/1000) with fine performance.
> I bet however, yahoo, google at least are much bigger :-)
>
> Regards
> Tino
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-10-21 06:01:07 | Re: table size/record limit |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2004-10-21 05:28:11 | Re: table size/record limit |