Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
Date: 2006-09-18 23:58:13
Message-ID: 20060918235810.GS6030@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:14:56PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
>If you have a table with 100million records, each of which is 200bytes long,
>that gives you roughtly 20 gig of data (assuming it was all written neatly
>and hasn't been updated much).   

If you're in that range it doesn't even count as big or challenging--you 
can keep it memory resident for not all that much money. 

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Francisco ReyesDate: 2006-09-19 00:21:16
Subject: Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
Previous:From: Marc McIntyreDate: 2006-09-18 23:48:10
Subject: LIKE query problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group