Thread: About page on .org site
The page http://www.postgresql.org/about/ states: "There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data." This seems like an obsolete comment. There are single node databases that Heroku controls that are larger than that now. I doubt Heroku really pushes PostgreSQL to its limits in this dimension, and it seems reasonable to suppose some production PostgreSQL databases are far larger these days. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan
On 26 September 2015 at 22:21, Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote: > The page http://www.postgresql.org/about/ states: > > "There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that > manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data." > > This seems like an obsolete comment. There are single node databases > that Heroku controls that are larger than that now. I doubt Heroku > really pushes PostgreSQL to its limits in this dimension, and it seems > reasonable to suppose some production PostgreSQL databases are far > larger these days. Indeed. The San Diego Supercomputer Center mentions having a 50TB PostgreSQL database, and there are no doubt much larger databases than that around too: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/sdscs_gordon_supercomputer_parsing_genes_proteins_and_big_bio_data Thom
On 09/27/2015 01:39 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 26 September 2015 at 22:21, Peter Geoghegan > <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote: >> The page http://www.postgresql.org/about/ states: >> >> "There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that >> manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data." >> >> This seems like an obsolete comment. There are single node databases >> that Heroku controls that are larger than that now. I doubt Heroku >> really pushes PostgreSQL to its limits in this dimension, and it seems >> reasonable to suppose some production PostgreSQL databases are far >> larger these days. > > Indeed. The San Diego Supercomputer Center mentions having a 50TB > PostgreSQL database, and there are no doubt much larger databases than > that around too: > http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/sdscs_gordon_supercomputer_parsing_genes_proteins_and_big_bio_data /about/ is horribly outdated and in serious need of an overhaul(it was last updated in 2007/2008!), the 4TB thing is just the tip of the iceberg - see also http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAF4Au4yBUbPwnGyxjV69UkScs-Xh9V+2JoNyVE4hj7LrwkzYCQ@mail.gmail.com Somebody really should take the time and rewrite that thing sentence by sentence... Stefan
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Somebody really should take the time and rewrite that thing sentence by > sentence... Dunno about sentences. IMO the fact that the page is a long, boring block of text is bad in itself. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Somebody really should take the time and rewrite that thing sentence by >> sentence... > > Dunno about sentences. IMO the fact that the page is a long, boring > block of text is bad in itself. I agree. The way that it lists limitations like "Maximum Columns per Table" so prominently is just weird, too. In general, the text is far too tick-box orientated. If that was how people evaluated database systems, then Firebird would probably be almost as popular as PostgreSQL. The actual tick-boxes are in some cases ones that no one cares about. We certainly shouldn't list rules, for example. And the fact that we list things like having a Python driver suggests that it would not be preposterous if we did not have one. The about page also mentions HP-UX in the second sentence. Some of the features listed there are pretty cool, but I didn't know that until I used them. The overall picture of how PostgreSQL is flexible, extensible, and powerful is much more important, and could be expressed more tersely. Can someone with some marketing skills rewrite it? -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan