From: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Postgres and really huge tables |
Date: | 2007-01-18 20:31:35 |
Message-ID: | 45AFD927.9050605@janestcapital.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
Is there any experience with Postgresql and really huge tables? I'm
talking about terabytes (plural) here in a single table. Obviously the
table will be partitioned, and probably spread among several different
file systems. Any other tricks I should know about?
We have a problem of that form here. When I asked why postgres wasn't
being used, the opinion that postgres would "just <explicitive> die" was
given. Personally, I'd bet money postgres could handle the problem (and
better than the ad-hoc solution we're currently using). But I'd like a
couple of replies of the form "yeah, we do that here- no problem" to
wave around.
Brian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-01-18 20:39:45 | Re: Postgres and really huge tables |
Previous Message | Robert Bernier | 2007-01-12 15:27:38 | Re: New liveCD? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-01-18 20:39:45 | Re: Postgres and really huge tables |
Previous Message | Jeremy Haile | 2007-01-18 20:21:47 | Re: Autoanalyze settings with zero scale factor |