From: | Harald Armin Massa <chef(at)ghum(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Date: | 2009-03-17 14:00:52 |
Message-ID: | e3e180dc0903170700v27c4e7j374b37f9d06895a5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
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?
Harakd
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
no fx, no carrier pigeon
-
LASIK good, steroids bad?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Juan Pereira | 2009-03-17 14:25:57 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-03-17 13:56:14 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-03-17 14:04:09 | Re: Uploading data to postgresql database |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-03-17 13:56:14 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |