From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Harald Armin Massa <chef(at)ghum(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Date: | 2009-03-17 17:03:39 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150903171003x7525f9b5n812c4705ab6fa193@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Harald Armin Massa <chef(at)ghum(dot)de> wrote:
> Merlin,
>
>> I agree though
>> that a single table approach is best unless 1) the table has to scale
>> to really, really large sizes or 2) there is a lot of churn on the
>> data (lots of bulk inserts and deletes).
>
> while agreeing, an additional question: could you please pronounce
> "really, really large" in other units, like Gigabytes or Number of
> rows (with average rowlength in bytes, of course)
>
> That is: what table size would you or anybody consider really, really
> large actually?
A good rule of thumb for large is table size > working ram. Huge
(really large) is 10x ram.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sam Mason | 2009-03-17 17:15:58 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-03-17 16:50:40 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sam Mason | 2009-03-17 17:15:58 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Previous Message | Daniel Manesajian | 2009-03-17 16:59:08 | Re: using window functions |