Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  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

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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