| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "J(dot) Andrew Rogers" <jrogers(at)neopolitan(dot)com>, Carlos Eduardo Smanioto <csmanioto(at)uol(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2004-05-06 08:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4099F396.2020103@archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> What's the case of bigger database PostgreSQL (so greate and amount of
>>> registers) that they know???
>
>
> Didn't someone say that RedSheriff had a 10TB postgres database or
> something?
From http://www.redsheriff.com/us/news/news_4_201.html
"According to the company, RedSheriff processes 10 billion records a
month and the total amount of data managed is more than 32TB. Griffin
said PostgreSQL has been in production for 12 months with not a single
database fault in that time “The stability of the database can not be
questioned. Needless to say, we are extremely happy."
I think it's safe to assume this is not on a spare Dell 600SC though.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-05-06 08:43:25 | Re: [PERFORM] [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Bruce | 2004-05-06 02:59:01 | I understand now |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-05-06 08:43:25 | Re: [PERFORM] [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-05-06 01:48:30 | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL |