public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
To: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:15:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CANP8+jJ+qfuoiZ8RZq9Wr+6FHKM0aqktoUK2EdHCNwAz54FbpQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <4fe11dc1b660433594624b280b8ad832@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<3d7cd4673a80438798ad20b83411e3ca@SC58MEXGP001.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<1646547df04f4555a548ad7815208d5f@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<[email protected]>
<68e5e2554e2240c6a22bd384fa7c9659@SC58MEXGP036.CORP.CHARTERCOM.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CABUevEy+m5V9baEqhLeKTmc=EEh1p6H3Vs7O_GM3O8JmWX6S0g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
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
view thread (11+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this still accurate?
In-Reply-To: <CANP8+jJ+qfuoiZ8RZq9Wr+6FHKM0aqktoUK2EdHCNwAz54FbpQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox