| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: White paper on very big databases |
| Date: | 2009-02-05 02:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | 498A5199.9070004@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Jonah,
> IIRC, EnterpriseDB had one customer with over 1TB of data, but they too
> would have been hush-hush about it. When I was consulting, I saw very
> few Postgres databases at or over 1TB. While Postgres can handle fairly
> large data sets, it lacks some fairly important VLDB features which is
> probably why there are so few people with multi-terabyte PG databases.
> Perhaps JD/Fetter know of more, but I can count the ones I know of at < 10.
Odd, I worked on a bunch of multi-TB databases, one of them 75TB.
However, I'd agree that for *most* VLDB purposes, specialty DBMSes are
generally a better choice. We tend to fill in when someone needs hybrid
OLTP/DW functionality.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grant Allen | 2009-02-05 03:21:03 | Re: White paper on very big databases |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2009-02-05 02:36:19 | Re: White paper on very big databases |