| From: | Bradley Kieser <brad(at)kieser(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Prasanth A(dot) Kumar" <kumar1(at)home(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
| Date: | 2000-07-27 10:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | E13HkXo-0001Je-00@kieser.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
My mistake! ;-)
I remember wondering who would ever need more that the 16K that the Sinclair Spectrum could give you!
Quoting "Prasanth A. Kumar" <kumar1(at)home(dot)com>:
> brad <brad(at)kieser(dot)net> writes:
>
> <snip>
> > Simply waiting for 64bit numbers is rather inelegant and also presumes
> usage
> > parameters for the database... remember Bill Gates saying that he
> couldn't
> > foresee any usage for more than 64MB of RAM? Besides which, PostgreSQL is
> the
> > best DB around... there's a high standard to maintain!
> <snip>
>
> Actually, he was purported to have said that nobody would need more
> that 640KB or ram, which was the limit of memory on MSDOS. Brings back
> memories... remember having to juggle the drivers on bootup to plays
> that game which wanted nearly all of the base memory but you still
> needed the mouse, soundcard and cdrom access? ;-)
>
> --
> Prasanth Kumar
> kumar1(at)home(dot)com
>
Bradley Kieser
Director
Kieser.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Snow | 2000-07-27 10:58:13 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
| Previous Message | Bradley Kieser | 2000-07-27 10:02:04 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Snow | 2000-07-27 10:58:13 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
| Previous Message | Nicolas Kizilian | 2000-07-27 10:04:36 | timestamp and null value |