Hervé Piedvache wrote:
>
> No ... as I have said ... how I'll manage a database getting a table of may be
> 250 000 000 records ? I'll need incredible servers ... to get quick access or
> index reading ... no ?
>
> So what we would like to get is a pool of small servers able to make one
> virtual server ... for that is called a Cluster ... no ?
>
> I know they are not using PostgreSQL ... but how a company like Google do to
> get an incredible database in size and so quick access ?
Probably by carefully partitioning their data. I can't imagine anything
being fast on a single table in 250,000,000 tuple range. Nor can I
really imagine any database that efficiently splits a single table
across multiple machines (or even inefficiently unless some internal
partitioning is being done).
So, you'll have to do some work at your end and not just hope that
a "magic bullet" is available.
Once you've got the data partitioned, the question becomes one of
how to inhance performance/scalability. Have you considered RAIDb?
--
Steve Wampler -- swampler@noao.edu
The gods that smiled on your birth are now laughing out loud.
