| From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(at)pasteur(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Date: | 2000-07-20 09:02:50 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.96.1000720110001.11997C-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thursday 20 July 2000, at 10 h 0, the keyboard of Karel Zak
> <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> wrote:
>
> > And what is a "large database"? 1, 5 .. 10Gb? If yes, (IMHO) the PostgreSQL
> > is good choice.
>
> Even on Linux? I'm studying a database project where the raw data is 10 to 20
> Gb (it will be in several tables in the same database). Linux has a limit of 2
> Gb for a file (even on 64-bits machine, if I'm correct). A colleague told me
> to use NetBSD instead, because PostgreSQL on a Linux machine cannot host more
> than 2 Gb per database. Any practical experience? (I'm not interested in "It
> should work".)
I must again say: "The PostgreSQL is good choice" :-)
The postgres chunks DB files, not exist 2Gb limit here...
Karel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | anuj | 2000-07-20 11:45:17 | RE: Return PGresult |
| Previous Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2000-07-20 08:54:50 | currval(seq) fails if no nextval(seq) first |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-07-20 09:30:54 | Re: Hello PL/Python |
| Previous Message | Jules Bean | 2000-07-20 08:52:01 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |