Simon Riggs wrote:
> All of those responses have cooked up quite a few topics into one. Large
> databases might mean text warehouses, XML message stores, relational
> archives and fact-based business data warehouses.
>
> The main thing is that TB-sized databases are performance critical. So
> it all depends upon your workload really as to how well PostgreSQL, or
> another other RDBMS vendor can handle them.
>
>
> Anyway, my reason for replying to this thread is that I'm planning
> changes for PostgreSQL 8.4+ that will make allow us to get bigger and
> faster databases. If anybody has specific concerns then I'd like to hear
> them so I can consider those things in the planning stages
it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset
on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full
scan.
In my opinion, by definition, a huge database sooner or later will have
tables far bigger than RAM available (same for their indexes). I think
the queries need to be solved using indexes enough smart to be fast on disk.
Pablo
