Re: TB-sized databases

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Peter Koczan <pjkoczan(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: 2007-11-26 17:23:07
Message-ID: 474B00FB.6070309@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Peter Koczan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
> (and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
> be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
> TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize them (mostly
> hardware and config parameters, maybe a little advocacy). I can't
> speak on that since I don't have any DBs approaching that size.
>
> The other part of this puzzle is that he's torn between MS SQL Server
> (running on Windows and unsupported by us) and PostgreSQL (running on
> Linux...which we would fully support). If any of you have ideas of how
> well PostgreSQL compares to SQL Server, especially in TB-sized
> databases, that would be much appreciated.
>
> We're running PG 8.2.5, by the way.

Well I can't speak to MS SQL-Server because all of our clients run
PostgreSQL ;).. I can tell you we have many that are in the 500GB -
1.5TB range.

All perform admirably as long as you have the hardware behind it and are
doing correct table structuring (such as table partitioning).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Peter
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2007-11-26 17:34:01 Re: TB-sized databases
Previous Message Peter Koczan 2007-11-26 17:04:50 TB-sized databases