From: | Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa(at)laotraesquina(dot)com(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TB-sized databases |
Date: | 2007-11-26 18:44:23 |
Message-ID: | 474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I had a client that tried to use Ms Sql Server to run a 500Gb+ database.
The database simply colapsed. They switched to Teradata and it is
running good. This database has now 1.5Tb+.
Currently I have clients using postgresql huge databases and they are
happy. In one client's database the biggest table has 237Gb+ (only 1
table!) and postgresql run the database without problem using
partitioning, triggers and rules (using postgresql 8.2.5).
Pablo
Peter Koczan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a user who is looking to store 500+ GB of data in a database
> (and when all the indexes and metadata are factored in, it's going to
> be more like 3-4 TB). He is wondering how well PostgreSQL scales with
> TB-sized databases and what can be done to help optimize them (mostly
> hardware and config parameters, maybe a little advocacy). I can't
> speak on that since I don't have any DBs approaching that size.
>
> The other part of this puzzle is that he's torn between MS SQL Server
> (running on Windows and unsupported by us) and PostgreSQL (running on
> Linux...which we would fully support). If any of you have ideas of how
> well PostgreSQL compares to SQL Server, especially in TB-sized
> databases, that would be much appreciated.
>
> We're running PG 8.2.5, by the way.
>
> Peter
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Cook | 2007-11-26 19:16:28 | Re: TB-sized databases |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2007-11-26 17:34:01 | Re: TB-sized databases |