Brian Hurt wrote:
> Is there any experience with Postgresql and really huge tables? I'm
> talking about terabytes (plural) here in a single table. Obviously the
> table will be partitioned, and probably spread among several different
> file systems. Any other tricks I should know about?
>
> We have a problem of that form here. When I asked why postgres wasn't
> being used, the opinion that postgres would "just <explicitive> die" was
> given. Personally, I'd bet money postgres could handle the problem (and
> better than the ad-hoc solution we're currently using). But I'd like a
> couple of replies of the form "yeah, we do that here- no problem" to
> wave around.
It entirely depends on the machine and how things are accessed. In
theory you could have a multi-terabyte table but my question of course
is why in the world would you do that? That is what partitioning is for.
Regardless, appropriate use of things like partial indexes should make
it possible.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
