-On [20030909 20:32], Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) wrote:
>I know Tom is concerned because we haven't tested it, but I don't think
>anyone has tested 16TB either, nor our 1600-column limit.
If I had the space free on my SAN right now I'd try it.
The 1600 column limit should be easy to test on every system with some
scripts, no?
>Also, I think people look at these numbers to determine if PostgreSQL
>can handle their data needs 5-10 years down the road.
At work right now I have a bunch of 2-3 TB databases using Oracle 8.
We're expected to be using 60 TB in total storage about 2 years down the
road (right now we're using about 20).
I guess GIS databases and image databases might be the ones who would be
more concerned about these sort of limits in the near term future?
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7 9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
From morning to night I stayed out of sight / Didn't recognise I'd become
No more than alive I'd barely survive / In a word, overrun...
