On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 05:44:48PM +0100, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> So really, really large would mean something like 100 petabytes
>
> My personal opinion is that a "large" database has more than ~10 million
> rows in more than ~10 tables.
Surely anything like "large" or "small" is a relative measure that
depends on personal experience. Because this mailing list is such
a diverse group I'm not sure if they'd ever be particularly useful
descriptions. If you're talking with a more cohesive group or you've
already defined what you're talking about then maybe--i.e. this database
is larger than that one, and so on.
I'd suggest we try and not describe things as small or large and just
use simple and unambiguous numeric descriptions; i.e. I'm expecting to
have a couple of tables with 10 to 100 million rows and the remaining 10
to 20 supporting tables having a few hundred rows.
I wouldn't expect row counts to be more accurate than a decimal log and
table counts to be more accurate than a ratio of two.
That's my two cents anyway!
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
