From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inheritance efficiency |
Date: | 2010-05-01 07:00:56 |
Message-ID: | 4BDBD1A8.9020106@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Vincenzo Romano wrote:
> While I can agree that "Enterprise grade" is a buzzword, it does mean
> something: "very large amount of data" among other.
>
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Bitten_by_the_Enterprise_Bug.aspx
It's quite straighforward to get PostgreSQL up and running with many
terabytes of data, so long as you respect the design trade-offs in some
options. What you can't do is say those are wrong and reject
alternative implementation suggestions just because they're not
"enterprise". Whenever anyone uses that word at me, I mentally replace
it with "super duper", and
> There's no "fundamentally good design", but only a design which takes
> limitations and constraints into account.
>
You mean like taking into account the fact that partitioning performance
has an unavoidable trade-off, where you have to balance the query
optimizer overhead of supporting many partitions against the improvement
from splitting data into smaller pieces?
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-01 07:17:53 | Re: Native DB replication for PG |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-01 06:59:42 | Re: Native DB replication for PG |