| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | nevita0305(at)hotmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: is postgres a good solution for billion record data.. what about mySQL? |
| Date: | 2009-10-24 20:34:56 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10910241334g44af7a9an9d155bee5686e157@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Tawita Tererei <nevita0305(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In addition to this what about MySQL, how much data (records) that can be
> managed with it?
That's a question for the mysql mailing lists / forums really. I do
know there's some artificial limit in the low billions that you have
to create your table with some special string to get it to handle
more.
As for pgsql, we use one of our smaller db servers to keep track of
our stats. It's got a 6 disk RAID-10 array of 2TB SATA 5400 RPM
drives (i.e. not that fast really) and we store about 2.5M rows a day
in it. So in 365 days we could see 900M rows in it. Each daily
partition takes about 30 seconds to seq scan. On our faster servers,
we can seq scan all 2.5M rows in about 10 seconds.
PostgreSQL can handle it, but don't expect good performance with a
single 5400RPM SATA drive or anything.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-10-24 20:43:11 | Re: is postgres a good solution for billion record data |
| Previous Message | Bruno Baguette | 2009-10-24 20:24:49 | Re: How can I get one OLD.* field in a dynamic query inside a trigger function ? |