| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alejandro Lemus" <alejandro_lemus2003(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question |
| Date: | 2005-07-11 13:34:51 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7756@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> In the past week, one guy of Unix Group in Colombia
> say: "Postgrest in production is bat, if the power off in any
> time the datas is lost why this datas is in plain files.
> Postgrest no ssupport data bases with more 1 millon of records".
> Wath tell me in this respect?, is more best Informix as say
Both these statements are completely incorrect.
Unlike some other "database systems", PostgreSQL *does* survive power
loss without any major problems. Assuming you use a metadata journailng
filesystem, and don't run with non-battery-backed write-cache (but no db
can survive that..)
And having a million records is no problem at all. You may run into
considerations when you're talking billions, but you can do that as well
- it just takes a bit more knowledge before you can do it right.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-07-11 14:51:28 | Re: cost-based vacuum |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-07-11 13:29:07 | Re: Question |