Ever hear of swap space? Your application couldn't possibly be working
on all 12 gig at one time. So what it is working on would be in memory.
But, this is only if you can tolerate the loss of LOTS of data in the
event of power failure, memory corrtiptons etx.
Neil Conway wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 15:28, Dennis Gearon wrote:
> > If you are looking for speed, I would make the whole thing as arrays in memory
> > in C++, and just do backups to the database on a regular basis.
>
> You'd suggest storing "12 to 15GB" of data in main memory on an x86
> machine with 4GB of RAM?
>
> > Guillaume Houssay wrote:
> > > 4 tables will have 1Million rows and 1000 columns with 90% of INT2 and
> > > the rest of float (20% of all the data will be 0)
>
> 1,000 columns? That doesn't sound like the result of good database
> design...
>
> And if you'd like to try micro-optimizations, multiple NULL values in a
> single tuple are stored efficiently -- so if those "0" values show up
> more than once per tuple, consider storing them in the DB as NULL and
> then converting them back to 0 (perhaps using COALESCE) on output.
>
> > > DELL
> > > bi-processor 2.8GHz
> > > 4GB RAM
> > > 76GB HD using Raid 5
> > > Linux version to be defined (Redhat ?)
> > >
> > > Do you think this configuration is enough to have good performance after
> > > setting up properly the database ?
>
> Without telling us more information on how frequently your clients are
> going to be accessing the DB, it's really impossible to say.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
