From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa(at)laotraesquina(dot)com(dot)ar> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TB-sized databases |
Date: | 2007-11-28 17:28:28 |
Message-ID: | 1196270908.4246.1250.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 18:06 -0500, Pablo Alcaraz wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > All of those responses have cooked up quite a few topics into one. Large
> > databases might mean text warehouses, XML message stores, relational
> > archives and fact-based business data warehouses.
> >
> > The main thing is that TB-sized databases are performance critical. So
> > it all depends upon your workload really as to how well PostgreSQL, or
> > another other RDBMS vendor can handle them.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, my reason for replying to this thread is that I'm planning
> > changes for PostgreSQL 8.4+ that will make allow us to get bigger and
> > faster databases. If anybody has specific concerns then I'd like to hear
> > them so I can consider those things in the planning stages
> it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset
> on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full
> scan.
>
> In my opinion, by definition, a huge database sooner or later will have
> tables far bigger than RAM available (same for their indexes). I think
> the queries need to be solved using indexes enough smart to be fast on disk.
OK, I agree with this one.
I'd thought that index-only plans were only for OLTP, but now I see they
can also make a big difference with DW queries. So I'm very interested
in this area now.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew | 2007-11-28 17:34:37 | Re: TB-sized databases |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-11-28 17:22:56 | Re: TB-sized databases |