MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEHBEOBuoMFWuhHM3L_Zr6o1enELju-Vns6Pknt4TT+6MFQOwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fd47b28c-8f6b-4bfb-a393-160c5c3de8c0@aklaver.com> <CAEHBEOD969YrbPH_z9OEmThWx3-w4sMMaHLhZLOQwqCwE8Y58Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <caf4e99941b3c83bb9eab91e33b144b826b68f79.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAEHBEOBXzkGTqxQSYqmEFN5hbc=zsGWFpU9h8zf7AAPv4VdOWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9699a6fd331d33864fc269060d8d961f784d827.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAEHBEOBNoG8RkKuCcQQWkbYppMLMzA0MXq+s0kZ6wKWgD7+45Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <099b49ebae94e23f19afdad3f8c9c6e702a3a2d5.camel@cybertec.at>
 <CAEHBEODw8svX557pjB_EL-Os7KWtwi-9Uq=RuCkRKgHVZWw8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6d7e1022-6404-4dab-8467-8d1f6e8b63cb@aklaver.com> <CAEHBEOCpxASoNn=u21kaqOn1A-4YPy_mVfgkEjT3wRT5G4ycbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEHBEOCpxASoNn=u21kaqOn1A-4YPy_mVfgkEjT3wRT5G4ycbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 01:22:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CANzqJaBP6CWiUnAARTS=GJzkk-8sqt-mLZZgz9NOyHs-V4-M5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffe185062fa68866"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANzqJaBP6CWiUnAARTS%3DGJzkk-8sqt-mLZZgz9NOyHs-V4-M5w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000ffe185062fa68866
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:44=E2=80=AFPM me nefcanto <sn.1361@gmail.com> wrot=
e:

> I once worked with a monolithic SQL Server database with more than 10
> billion records and about 8 Terabytes of data. A single backup took us mo=
re
> than 21 days. It was a nightmare.
>

25 years ago (meaning *much* slower hardware), I managed a 1TB database.
Backups took about 4 hours.  Could have gotten it down to two hours if I'd
wanted to use more tape drives.

Right now, I manage a 5TB database.  Backups take 110 minutes, and that's
when using one channel for all IO, writing to not the fastest NAS, and
other 3+TB databases backing up to it at the same time.


> Almost everybody knows that scaling up has a ceiling
>

And that ceiling is much, much higher than you think it is.


> , but scaling out has no boundaries.
>

Except for complexity and fragility. I bet I could get good scaled up
performance out of the amount of hardware you're using to scale out.

--=20
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

--000000000000ffe185062fa68866
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 9:44=E2=80=AFPM me=
 nefcanto &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sn.1361@gmail.com">sn.1361@gmail.com</a>&gt=
; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-f=
amily:tahoma,sans-serif">I once worked with a monolithic SQL Server databas=
e with more than 10 billion records and about 8 Terabytes=C2=A0of data. A s=
ingle backup took us more than 21 days. It was a nightmare. </div></div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>25 years ago (meaning <i>much</i> slower hard=
ware), I managed a 1TB database.=C2=A0 Backups took about 4 hours.=C2=A0 Co=
uld have gotten it down to two hours if I&#39;d wanted to use more tape dri=
ves.</div><div><br></div><div>Right now, I manage a 5TB database.=C2=A0 Bac=
kups take 110 minutes, and that&#39;s when using one channel for all IO, wr=
iting to not the fastest NAS, and other 3+TB databases backing up to it at =
the=C2=A0same time.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-family:tahoma,sans-ser=
if">Almost everybody knows that scaling up has a ceiling</div></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div><div>And that ceiling is much, much higher than y=
ou think it is.</div></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-family:tahoma,sans-s=
erif">, but scaling out has no boundaries.</div></div></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>Except=C2=A0for complexity and fragility. I bet I could get goo=
d scaled up performance out of the amount of hardware you&#39;re using to s=
cale out.</div><div><br></div></div><span class=3D"gmail_signature_prefix">=
-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">D=
eath to &lt;Redacted&gt;, and butter sauce.<div>Don&#39;t boil me, I&#39;m =
still alive.<br><div><div>&lt;Redacted&gt; lobster!</div></div></div></div>=
</div></div>

--000000000000ffe185062fa68866--