Re: TB-sized databases
От | Pablo Alcaraz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TB-sized databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | TB-sized databases ("Peter Koczan" <pjkoczan@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: TB-sized databases
Re: TB-sized databases |
Список | 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 > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: