public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRE: Is this still accurate?
11+ messages / 8 participants
[nested] [flat]
* RE: Is this still accurate?
@ 2018-01-05 17:34 Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:53 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Moser, Glen G @ 2018-01-05 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/?
Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as though this documentation might be out of date.
[cid:[email protected]]
Glen Moser
Director, Reporting & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)
From: Vianello, Daniel A
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:16 AM
To: Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>; Coleman, Cynthia A <[email protected]>; Boyce, Sherwyn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Is this still accurate?
It can't be accurate. Feel free to email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> to let the development group know that they should fix it.
Dan
From: Moser, Glen G
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 10:58 AM
To: Vianello, Daniel A <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Coleman, Cynthia A <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Boyce, Sherwyn <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Is this still accurate?
Is this still accurate information?
https://www.postgresql.org/about/
[cid:[email protected]]
Glen Moser
Director, Reporting & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
Attachments:
[image/jpeg] image002.jpg (48.5K, 3-image002.jpg)
download | view image
[image/jpeg] image001.jpg (48.5K, 4-image001.jpg)
download | view image
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 17:53 ` Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Scott Marlowe @ 2018-01-05 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Moser, Glen G <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/?
>
> Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below…it seems as though this documentation might be out of date.
What numbers specifically do you think are no longer accurate?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 17:54 ` Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Frost @ 2018-01-05 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Greetings,
* Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
> Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/?
>
> Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as though this documentation might be out of date.
The part you highlighted was:
"There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that
manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data."
Which is pretty accurate, I know of some myself that are larger than
4TB. That 4TB number isn't a limit of any kind and the sentence says
"in excess of" meaning that there are databases larger than that.
There's actually some which are quite a bit larger than that, in fact.
We could bump the number up there or remove the sentence, but I don't
think there's anything inaccurate about the statement.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (819B, 2-signature.asc)
download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* RE: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 17:57 ` Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Moser, Glen G @ 2018-01-05 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
Glen Moser
Director, Reporting & Analytics, NOC
Charter Communications
636.387.6888 (O) | 314.308.5680 (M)
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
Greetings,
* Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
> Can someone confirm the accuracy of the information found at https://www.postgresql.org/about/?
>
> Specifically the maximum data values in the screen shot below...it seems as though this documentation might be out of date.
The part you highlighted was:
"There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data."
Which is pretty accurate, I know of some myself that are larger than 4TB. That 4TB number isn't a limit of any kind and the sentence says "in excess of" meaning that there are databases larger than that.
There's actually some which are quite a bit larger than that, in fact.
We could bump the number up there or remove the sentence, but I don't think there's anything inaccurate about the statement.
Thanks!
Stephen
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 18:00 ` Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Frost @ 2018-01-05 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Greetings,
* Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>
> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
it.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (819B, 2-signature.asc)
download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 18:33 ` Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:55 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 19:09 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steve Atkins @ 2018-01-05 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
>> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>>
>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
>
> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
> it.
It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
Cheers,
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 18:55 ` Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2018-01-05 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
Steve Atkins wrote:
> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
>
> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
I'd just add a 0 to "40TB" and be done with it. We have larger
databases but this is a decent enough number.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-05 19:09 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 14:45 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan S. Katz @ 2018-01-05 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
--Apple-Mail=_C1457EF3-D26E-4E06-BFB7-C6F5CD635A88
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head></head><body dir=3D"auto" style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div =
class=3D"ApplePlainTextBody">Hi,<br><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">On Jan =
5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> =
wrote:<br><br><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, =
Stephen Frost <[email protected]> =
wrote:<br><br>Greetings,<br><br>* Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">That's really the gist of the =
concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is =
wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of =
upper bound.<br><br>That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am =
just following up.<br></blockquote><br>Well, saying 'in excess of' is =
pretty clear, but I don't think the<br>sentence is really adding much =
either, so perhaps we should just remove<br>it.<br></blockquote><br>It's =
been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle =
"large"<br>databases operationally, rather than just having large =
theoretical limits.<br><br>Updating it would be great, or wrapping a =
little more verbiage around the<br>4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing =
it altogether.<br></blockquote><br>Here is a proposed patch that updates =
the wording:<br><br><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" =
style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>"There are active PostgreSQL =
instances in production environments that manage many terabytes of data, =
as well as clusters managing petabytes.=E2=80=9D<br><br>The idea is that =
it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters can run without =
fixing people on a number. People can draw their own conclusions =
from the hard limits further down the =
page.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Jonathan<br><br><br><br><object =
name=3D"0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch" =
data=3D"cid:4131FBB4-D303-4436-B975-DFE4E1E42DBF@home" =
type=3D"application/x-apple-msg-attachment" apple-inline=3D"no" =
id=3D"55FA3E44-8AEE-4242-AF11-69FFDA2950C7" height=3D"102" width=3D"150" =
apple-width=3D"yes" apple-height=3D"yes"></object></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_C1457EF3-D26E-4E06-BFB7-C6F5CD635A88
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
x-unix-mode=0644;
name="0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch"
Content-Id: <4131FBB4-D303-4436-B975-DFE4E1E42DBF@home>
=46rom=205d6e902dd9f11973851cffa75abf3917a4d1e36a=20Mon=20Sep=2017=20=
00:00:00=202001=0AFrom:=20"Jonathan=20S.=20Katz"=20=
<[email protected]>=0ADate:=20Fri,=205=20Jan=202018=20=
13:59:00=20-0500=0ASubject:=20[PATCH]=20Modify=20sentence=20on=20=
production=20PostgreSQL=20instances=20on=20about=0A=20page.=0A=0A---=0A=20=
templates/pages/about.html=20|=204=20++--=0A=201=20file=20changed,=202=20=
insertions(+),=202=20deletions(-)=0A=0Adiff=20--git=20=
a/templates/pages/about.html=20b/templates/pages/about.html=0Aindex=20=
9f6ef42..5af7222=20100644=0A---=20a/templates/pages/about.html=0A+++=20=
b/templates/pages/about.html=0A@@=20-22,8=20+22,8=20@@=20for=20fault=20=
tolerance.=20It=20supports=20international=20character=20sets,=20=
multibyte=0A=20character=20encodings,=20Unicode,=20and=20it=20is=20=
locale-aware=20for=20sorting,=0A=20case-sensitivity,=20and=20formatting.=20=
It=20is=20highly=20scalable=20both=20in=20the=20sheer=20quantity=0A=20of=20=
data=20it=20can=20manage=20and=20in=20the=20number=20of=20concurrent=20=
users=20it=20can=0A-accommodate.=20There=20are=20active=20PostgreSQL=20=
systems=20in=20production=20environments=20that=0A-manage=20in=20excess=20=
of=204=20terabytes=20of=20data.=20Some=20general=20PostgreSQL=20limits=20=
are=0A+accommodate.=20There=20are=20active=20PostgreSQL=20instances=20in=20=
production=20environments=20that=0A+manage=20many=20terabytes=20of=20=
data,=20as=20well=20as=20clusters=20managing=20petabytes.=20Some=20=
general=20PostgreSQL=20limits=20are=0A=20included=20in=20the=20table=20=
below.=20</p><div=20class=3D"informaltable"><a=20=
name=3D"table1"></a><table=20border=3D"0"><colgroup><col=20/><col=20=
/></colgroup><thead><tr><th><span=20=
class=3D"bold"><b>Limit</b></span></th><th><span=20=
class=3D"bold"><b>Value</b></span></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maximum=
=20Database=20Size</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Table=20=
Size</td><td>32=20TB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Row=20Size</td><td>1.6=20=
TB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Field=20Size</td><td>1=20=
GB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Rows=20per=20=
Table</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Columns=20per=20=
Table</td><td>250=20-=201600=20depending=20on=20column=20=
types</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum=20Indexes=20per=20=
Table</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr></tbody></table></div>=0A=20=
<p>PostgreSQL=20has=20won=20<a=20href=3D"/about/quotesarchive">praise=20=
from=20its=20users</a>=20and=20<a=20href=3D"/about/awards">industry=20=
recognition</a>,=20including=20the=20Linux=20New=20Media=20Award=20for=20=
Best=20Database=20System=20and=20five=20time=20winner=20of=20the=20The=20=
Linux=20Journal=20Editors'=20Choice=20Award=20for=20best=20DBMS.=0A=20=0A=
--=20=0A2.14.3=20(Apple=20Git-98)=0A=0A=
--Apple-Mail=_C1457EF3-D26E-4E06-BFB7-C6F5CD635A88--
Attachments:
[application/octet-stream] 0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch (2.1K, 2-0001-Modify-sentence-on-production-PostgreSQL-instances-o.patch)
download | inline diff:
From 5d6e902dd9f11973851cffa75abf3917a4d1e36a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:59:00 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Modify sentence on production PostgreSQL instances on about
page.
---
templates/pages/about.html | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/templates/pages/about.html b/templates/pages/about.html
index 9f6ef42..5af7222 100644
--- a/templates/pages/about.html
+++ b/templates/pages/about.html
@@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ for fault tolerance. It supports international character sets, multibyte
character encodings, Unicode, and it is locale-aware for sorting,
case-sensitivity, and formatting. It is highly scalable both in the sheer quantity
of data it can manage and in the number of concurrent users it can
-accommodate. There are active PostgreSQL systems in production environments that
-manage in excess of 4 terabytes of data. Some general PostgreSQL limits are
+accommodate. There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that
+manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes. Some general PostgreSQL limits are
included in the table below. </p><div class="informaltable"><a name="table1"></a><table border="0"><colgroup><col /><col /></colgroup><thead><tr><th><span class="bold"><b>Limit</b></span></th><th><span class="bold"><b>Value</b></span></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maximum Database Size</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Table Size</td><td>32 TB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Row Size</td><td>1.6 TB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Field Size</td><td>1 GB</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Rows per Table</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Columns per Table</td><td>250 - 1600 depending on column types</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Indexes per Table</td><td>Unlimited</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<p>PostgreSQL has won <a href="/about/quotesarchive">praise from its users</a> and <a href="/about/awards">industry recognition</a>, including the Linux New Media Award for Best Database System and five time winner of the The Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award for best DBMS.
--
2.14.3 (Apple Git-98)
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 19:09 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-06 14:45 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 16:35 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Magnus Hagander @ 2018-01-06 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; +Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not
> that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that
> 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>
> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
>
>
> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
> it.
>
>
> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
>
> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
>
>
> Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:
>
> "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that
> manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”
>
> The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters
> can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own
> conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.
>
> +1.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/;
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/;
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 19:09 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 14:45 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-06 16:35 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 18:15 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan S. Katz @ 2018-01-06 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>; +Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
Hi,
> On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> * Moser, Glen G ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) wrote:
>>>> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>>>>
>>>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
>>>
>>> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
>>> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
>>> it.
>>
>> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
>> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
>>
>> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
>> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
>
> Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:
>
> "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”
>
> The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.
>
> +1.
Changes pushed.
Jonathan
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Is this still accurate?
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 19:09 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 14:45 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 16:35 ` Re: Is this still accurate? Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-06 18:15 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Simon Riggs @ 2018-01-06 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; +Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>; Steve Atkins <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
On 6 January 2018 at 16:35, Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> * Moser, Glen G ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>> That's really the gist of the concern from a team member of mine. Not
>> that the 4TB number is wrong but that it could be misleading to assume that
>> 4TB is some sort of upper bound.
>>
>> That's how this concern was relayed to me and I am just following up.
>>
>>
>> Well, saying 'in excess of' is pretty clear, but I don't think the
>> sentence is really adding much either, so perhaps we should just remove
>> it.
>>
>>
>> It's been useful a few times to reassure people that we can handle "large"
>> databases operationally, rather than just having large theoretical limits.
>>
>> Updating it would be great, or wrapping a little more verbiage around the
>> 4TB number, but a mild -1 on removing it altogether.
>>
>>
>> Here is a proposed patch that updates the wording:
>>
>> "There are active PostgreSQL instances in production environments that
>> manage many terabytes of data, as well as clusters managing petabytes.”
>>
>> The idea is that it gives a sense of scope for how big instances/clusters
>> can run without fixing people on a number. People can draw their own
>> conclusions from the hard limits further down the page.
>>
> +1.
I don't think that's as useful, so -1 for removing the stated limit.
People always ask "how big can it go?" and having a specific number
there is important. We have publicly documented cases above 50TB, so I
think we should say that.
Clusters in Petabyte range? We need to be able to substantiate that
with publicly documented cases. They also need to be pure PostgreSQL,
not "with added tech", no?
Also, I can't see that the 1.6 TB per row is accurate, because that
would mean 1600 toast pointers at 20 bytes each = 32000 bytes, which
is above what we can normally support with 8kB blocksize as we
normally shipped.
Lastly, the "per table limit" should really say "32 TB per table, 128
PB for a partitioned table (4000 partitions)"
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-06 18:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-01-05 17:34 RE: Is this still accurate? Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:53 ` Scott Marlowe <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:54 ` Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 17:57 ` Moser, Glen G <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:00 ` Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:33 ` Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 18:55 ` Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
2018-01-05 19:09 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 14:45 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 16:35 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
2018-01-06 18:15 ` Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox