| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sean Carmody <sean(at)categoricalsolutions(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] What is "large" |
| Date: | 2000-01-05 05:51:47 |
| Message-ID: | 200001050551.AAA06444@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Just out of curiosity:
>
> I've noticed a number of exchanges on various PostgreSQL mailing lists along
> the lines of
>
> Original posting:
> > ... we are using a large database: tables having X number of rows ...
>
> Reply:
> ... that's not a large database! ;) ...
>
> Would a table with around 6,000,000 records (each with, say, 4 fields) be
> considered "large" for PostgreSQL?
Databases and tables of > 10 Gig would be large.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Lo | 2000-01-05 06:10:18 | Re: [GENERAL] Announce: PostgreSQL-6.5.3 binaries available forWindowsNT |
| Previous Message | Sean Carmody | 2000-01-05 05:40:27 | What is "large" |