Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
Date: 2009-03-17 17:15:58
Message-ID: 20090317171557.GC32672@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:44:48PM +0100, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> So really, really large would mean something like 100 petabytes
>
> My personal opinion is that a "large" database has more than ~10 million
> rows in more than ~10 tables.

Surely anything like "large" or "small" is a relative measure that
depends on personal experience. Because this mailing list is such
a diverse group I'm not sure if they'd ever be particularly useful
descriptions. If you're talking with a more cohesive group or you've
already defined what you're talking about then maybe--i.e. this database
is larger than that one, and so on.

I'd suggest we try and not describe things as small or large and just
use simple and unambiguous numeric descriptions; i.e. I'm expecting to
have a couple of tables with 10 to 100 million rows and the remaining 10
to 20 supporting tables having a few hundred rows.

I wouldn't expect row counts to be more accurate than a decimal log and
table counts to be more accurate than a ratio of two.

That's my two cents anyway!

--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Cheng 2009-03-17 17:47:18 Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2009-03-17 17:03:39 Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jennifer Trey 2009-03-17 17:23:04 PostgreSql with or without Plus?
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2009-03-17 17:03:39 Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data