From: | Mark Jones <mark(dot)jones(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Largest PG database known to man! |
Date: | 2013-10-01 22:00:01 |
Message-ID: | CE7103DC.922%mark.jones@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks for your quick response John.
From the limited information, it is mostly relational.
As for usage patterns, I do not have that yet.
I was just after a general feel of what is out there size wise.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Jones
Principal Sales Engineer Emea
http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Email: Mark(dot)Jones(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Tel: 44 7711217186
Skype: Mxjones121
On 01/10/2013 22:56, "John R Pierce" <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
>On 10/1/2013 2:49 PM, Mark Jones wrote:
>> We are currently working with a customer who is looking at a database
>> of between 200-400 TB! They are after any confirmation of PG working
>> at this size or anywhere near it.
>
>
>is that really 200-400TB of relational data, or is it 199-399TB of bulk
>data (blobs or whatever) interspersed with some relational metadata?
>
>what all is the usage pattern of this data? that determines the
>feasibility of something far more than just the raw size.
>
>
>
>
>--
>john r pierce 37N 122W
>somewhere on the middle of the left coast
>
>
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Ross | 2013-10-01 22:06:37 | Re: Largest PG database known to man! |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2013-10-01 21:56:07 | Re: Largest PG database known to man! |