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

Re: Postgres and really huge tables

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Chris Mair <chris(at)1006(dot)org>, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres and really huge tables
Date: 2007-01-20 00:04:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-performance
> A lot of data, but not a lot of records... I don't know if that's
> valid. I guess the people at Greenplum and/or Sun have more exciting
> stories ;)

Not really.   Pretty much multi-terabyte tables are fine on vanilla 
PostgreSQL if you can stick to partitioned and/or indexed access.  If you 
need to do unindexed fishing expeditions on 5tb of data, then talk to 


Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-01-22 09:40:22
Subject: Re: Table Inheritence and Partioning
Previous:From: Kevin HunterDate: 2007-01-19 21:40:55
Subject: Re: DB benchmark and pg config file help

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Robert BernierDate: 2007-01-20 16:22:56
Subject: Linuxworld Toronto, April 30 - May 2
Previous:From: Brian HurtDate: 2007-01-19 17:32:05
Subject: Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group