Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Date
Msg-id 1166766274.5594.91.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?  (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>)
Responses Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
List pgsql-general
> >> With One Big Database, you can get a SAN and attach a whole lot of
> >> disk space, but your mobo will only accept a certain number of DIMMs
> >> and processors of certain designs.  And when your growing mega
> >> database maxes out your h/w, you're stuck.
> >
> > Define mega... Because you would need to be in the multi-terrabyte
> > range.
>
> I'm thinking more of RAM and CPU.

32GB is an awful lot of ram... as is 8 cores. You can get 16 core
machines now that will take 64GB.

Joshua D. Drake


--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: mike
Date:
Subject: Re: Best Perl DBI Driver for Postgres
Next
From: Ron Johnson
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?