Re: TB-sized databases

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: 2007-11-27 23:06:34
Message-ID: 474CA2FA.2020201@laotraesquina.com.ar
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Simon Riggs wrote:
> All of those responses have cooked up quite a few topics into one. Large
> databases might mean text warehouses, XML message stores, relational
> archives and fact-based business data warehouses.
>
> The main thing is that TB-sized databases are performance critical. So
> it all depends upon your workload really as to how well PostgreSQL, or
> another other RDBMS vendor can handle them.
>
>
> Anyway, my reason for replying to this thread is that I'm planning
> changes for PostgreSQL 8.4+ that will make allow us to get bigger and
> faster databases. If anybody has specific concerns then I'd like to hear
> them so I can consider those things in the planning stages
it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset
on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full
scan.

In my opinion, by definition, a huge database sooner or later will have
tables far bigger than RAM available (same for their indexes). I think
the queries need to be solved using indexes enough smart to be fast on disk.

Pablo

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steinar H. Gunderson 2007-11-27 23:38:33 Re: Query only slow on first run
Previous Message cluster 2007-11-27 22:51:40 Re: Query only slow on first run