From: | kumar1(at)home(dot)com (Prasanth A(dot) Kumar) |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Date: | 2000-07-27 03:37:07 |
Message-ID: | m3og3kmefw.fsf@C654771-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-27 04:12:41 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Previous Message | Dave Burbidge | 2000-07-27 03:23:36 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-07-27 04:12:41 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-27 03:02:37 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |