Herbert Simon must be spinning in his grave...or smiling wisely. What
does a human do with a petabyte of data?
But when a desktop machine for $1700 retail has a terabyte of storage,
the unix operating system, 4 gigs of memory, and an amazing 27 inch
display, I guess hardware isn't the problem (and I know one could put
together the same machine on Linux etc. for much less).
I sort of understood that the Amazon's of the world had this amount of
data, but it looks like the phenomenon is much, much more widespread.
Thanks for the instruction. It will come in handy.
John
On May 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, david@gardnerit.net wrote:
> At work I have one table with 32 million rows, not quite the size you
> are talking about, but to give you an idea of the performance, the
> following query returns 14,659 rows in 405ms:
>
> SELECT * FROM farm.frame
> WHERE process_start > '2010-05-26';
>
> process_start is a timestamp without time zone column, and is
> covered by
> an index. Rows are reletively evenly distributed over time, so the
> index
> performs quite well.
>
> A between select also performs well:
> SELECT * FROM farm.frame
> WHERE process_start
> BETWEEN '2010-05-26 08:00:00'
> AND '2010-05-26 09:00:00';
>
> fetches 1,350 rows at 25ms.
>
> I also have a summary table that is maintained by triggers, which is a
> bit of denormalization, but speeds up common reporting queries.
>
> On 22:29 Wed 26 May , John Gage wrote:
>> Please forgive this intrusion, and please ignore it, but how many
>> applications out there have 110,000,000 row tables? I recently
>> multiplied 85,000 by 1,400 and said now way Jose.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John Gage
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
