Hi Tony,
Yep, for the time being you're pretty much limited to this for a table.
As far as commercial DBs go, IMHO (without knowing about DB2) Oracle is
the only player in town that will realistically deal with table sizes in
the order of 100sGB or more. Ingres has limitations similar to PG
although they will deny it, Informix I am a little bit rusty on now but
certainly when I used it last it didn't scale up much past the low
ordinal GBs per table and Sybase, IM v HO, is a joke anyway. Hope I
don't offend anyone with that last statement!
The wildcard here is DB2 because they have to renovated the code that I
cannot comment on it anymore.
Oracle's main drawbacks are:
a) VERY resource-intensive with a high process startup overhead.
b) VERY expensive. You are talking license fees into the £100 000s for
big iron installations.
But, as I said, IMHO, (and excluding DB2) Oracle is the only player to
look at.
Hope that this helps!
Brad
Tony and Bryn Reina wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bradley Kieser" <brad@kieser.net>
>To: "Tony Reina" <reina_ga@hotmail.com>
>Cc: <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Do Petabyte storage solutions exist?
>
>
> let alone the storate limit of 2GB per
>
>
>>table. So sadly, PG would have to bow out of this IMHO unless someone
>>else nukes me on this!
>>
>>
>
>Uh oh, 2 GB limit on table sizes. I did realize the limit was that low.
>
>Would commercial DBMS be the better solution for handling Terabyte databases
>and above?
>
>
>-Tony
>
>
>
