From: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)007Marketing(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Mailing lists <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Maximum database size |
Date: | 2006-04-19 02:49:54 |
Message-ID: | C06BDB6A.3F5BC%pgsql@007Marketing.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On 19/4/2006 9:15, "Richard Broersma Jr" <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> also, the size of postgresql is unlimited, however,
>> there *must* be a point at which performance begins to
>> significantly suffer. do we know what that point is
>> on a server with modern specs? are their ways to
>> minimize this? for example, create a cluster of pgsql
>> servers to handle the load?
>
> I'll defer this question for someone with more experience. :-)
>
>>
>> these questions don't impact me today, but they may
>> some day.
One way you can minimize performance impact of large datasets is to archive
historic data into another table - as an example you could keep the last 3
or 12 months worth of information in your main table and move older data to
a history table that can be reported on when required or use a view to join
the two tables when reporting.
As for load balancing have a look at pgcluster, it is a modified version of
postgreSQL that provides multiple master configurations. I haven't used it
myself as yet.
You can find it at http://pgcluster.projects.postgresql.org/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Talbot-Wilson | 2006-04-19 04:06:49 | Re: Logging problem |
Previous Message | Shane Ambler | 2006-04-19 02:21:29 | Re: postgresql connection problems |