| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Harald Armin Massa <chef(at)ghum(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
| Date: | 2009-03-18 12:00:35 |
| Message-ID: | 87d4cff3bw.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A good rule of thumb for large is table size > working ram. Huge
> (really large) is 10x ram.
Or better yet, large is data > working ram. Very large is data > directly
attached drives... That means that without fairly expensive hardware you start
talking about "very large" at about 4-10 TB.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2009-03-18 15:49:02 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
| Previous Message | Juan Pereira | 2009-03-18 09:50:27 | Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL for GPS Data |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2009-03-18 12:12:37 | Re: Query 4-5 times slower after ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Jasid ZA | 2009-03-18 11:59:20 | sql transaction |