On Fri, 31 May 2002, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> You seem to be confusing the question "How many rows can I have in a
> table?" with "How fast will query (X) run on a table with (Y) rows?"
IMHO, they're part of the same question. Given unlimited time, sure
your table size limit is disk space. But it seems to me, from
looking at the conversations here, that people don't care to wait
unlimited time for the results of a query.
> That's one extreme end of the spectrum, why not look at the other? You
> could load up on low-latency, 10K RPM 9-gig drives, and have amazing
> throughput with only a very small fraction of the total storage capacity.
I'm not convinced that the thoughput would be all that much better,
in fact, given an equivalant number of drives. I'd be interested
in hearing about the results of tests that show otherwise.
How many I/Os per second does a good modern 10K RPM SCSI drive do
these days, anyway?
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
